Thoughts on reading for the Tiptree

(This started as a response to a question in rysmiel's journal, and I decided I wanted it here for my own reference. What's here is expanded from that comment.)

I suspect that I'm going to have a much better idea of my normal book-choosing algorithms by the time I'm done with the Tiptree jury. Because what I have right now is a middle-sized "to be read" pile that consists entirely of new books selected by other people. And the basis for selection isn't that they know me and think I'll like this: it's that they think the book is sf or fantasy (I've already hit one that I'm fairly sure isn't, though one of my fellow jurors disagreed) and does interesting things with/about gender. Obviously, if those criteria didn't appeal to me, I wouldn't be a Tiptree juror, but it's a subset of my usual reading, not least because this is a genre award.

It's not that they aren't good--they vary widely, of course, but I'm enjoying myself. It's that I have an unusually large proportion of books by authors I haven't read before; no rereading; and nothing that isn't very recent. Obviously, I'm still dipping into other things, but when I'm thinking "what do I want to read?" rather than "I'd like to reread X", I'm looking at this pile, not at the rest of our bookshelves.

Thoughts on reading for the Tiptree

(This started as a response to a question in rysmiel's journal, and I decided I wanted it here for my own reference. What's here is expanded from that comment.)

I suspect that I'm going to have a much better idea of my normal book-choosing algorithms by the time I'm done with the Tiptree jury. Because what I have right now is a middle-sized "to be read" pile that consists entirely of new books selected by other people. And the basis for selection isn't that they know me and think I'll like this: it's that they think the book is sf or fantasy (I've already hit one that I'm fairly sure isn't, though one of my fellow jurors disagreed) and does interesting things with/about gender. Obviously, if those criteria didn't appeal to me, I wouldn't be a Tiptree juror, but it's a subset of my usual reading, not least because this is a genre award.

It's not that they aren't good--they vary widely, of course, but I'm enjoying myself. It's that I have an unusually large proportion of books by authors I haven't read before; no rereading; and nothing that isn't very recent. Obviously, I'm still dipping into other things, but when I'm thinking "what do I want to read?" rather than "I'd like to reread X", I'm looking at this pile, not at the rest of our bookshelves.

Friendster?

Someone I'd been out of touch with for a while just sent me an invite to friendster. I have no reason not to trust Prentiss (in fact, if you're reading this and would like an LJ invite code, email me), but I would like more information about it.

So, if you've used it, what have your experiences been? Did they ask too many personal questions, have weird terms of service, or spam you? Did you get useful or amusing results from it? What else would you tell me?

Friendster?

Someone I'd been out of touch with for a while just sent me an invite to friendster. I have no reason not to trust Prentiss (in fact, if you're reading this and would like an LJ invite code, email me), but I would like more information about it.

So, if you've used it, what have your experiences been? Did they ask too many personal questions, have weird terms of service, or spam you? Did you get useful or amusing results from it? What else would you tell me?

Finding Nemo

I saw Finding Nemo last night with treadpath (who had seen it before and was enthusiastic), quility, cattitude, and Rachel. Friday evening seemed to be a good time: we got five seats together, and the children in the audience were well-behaved, as were the adults. That is, everybody was watching the movie, not screaming or talking on their cell phones.

I liked it. Pixar does very good animation. The fish heroes (Nemo, his parents, and Dory) and other good guys--like the manta ray schoolteacher--were cuted up in a mammalian sort of way. But Nemo and his family live in a really nice anemone; the messages seemed basically positive (physical handicaps won't prevent you from doing what you want, and don't be over-protective of your children), and the surfing turtles were delightful. I am tired of Disney motherless animals, though: couldn't we have a warm, protective, father who isn't a widower? But I liked "Wake up, it's time to start school" "No, let me sleep" with the father being the one who wanted to stay in bed.

Full marks for the animated animals; the animated humans are less convincing, probably because we're hard-wired with tougher standards for a realistic child than for a realistic jellyfish, shark, or turtle. I know seagulls don't look quite like that, but I didn't care; I know humans don't look like that, and I did care. There are some funny bits, which fit into the story smoothly, but it's more Disney adventure than comedy.

If you're considering taking a small child to see this, note that the shark scenes may be scary, and this movie makes dentists' offices look scarier than they really are.

The credits are worth staying through: there's more cool animation, mostly involving the characters from the movie. Before the movie, they're showing an old Pixar animated short, in which a character is trying to get out of a snow globe and visit all the buxom females waving from an assortment of "Sunny [wherever]" souvenirs.

Finding Nemo

I saw Finding Nemo last night with treadpath (who had seen it before and was enthusiastic), quility, cattitude, and Rachel. Friday evening seemed to be a good time: we got five seats together, and the children in the audience were well-behaved, as were the adults. That is, everybody was watching the movie, not screaming or talking on their cell phones.

I liked it. Pixar does very good animation. The fish heroes (Nemo, his parents, and Dory) and other good guys--like the manta ray schoolteacher--were cuted up in a mammalian sort of way. But Nemo and his family live in a really nice anemone; the messages seemed basically positive (physical handicaps won't prevent you from doing what you want, and don't be over-protective of your children), and the surfing turtles were delightful. I am tired of Disney motherless animals, though: couldn't we have a warm, protective, father who isn't a widower? But I liked "Wake up, it's time to start school" "No, let me sleep" with the father being the one who wanted to stay in bed.

Full marks for the animated animals; the animated humans are less convincing, probably because we're hard-wired with tougher standards for a realistic child than for a realistic jellyfish, shark, or turtle. I know seagulls don't look quite like that, but I didn't care; I know humans don't look like that, and I did care. There are some funny bits, which fit into the story smoothly, but it's more Disney adventure than comedy.

If you're considering taking a small child to see this, note that the shark scenes may be scary, and this movie makes dentists' offices look scarier than they really are.

The credits are worth staying through: there's more cool animation, mostly involving the characters from the movie. Before the movie, they're showing an old Pixar animated short, in which a character is trying to get out of a snow globe and visit all the buxom females waving from an assortment of "Sunny [wherever]" souvenirs.

not-so-secret feminist cabal

whumpdotcom generously let me borrow the one-of-a-kind Secret Feminist Cabal jacket she won in the raffle at Wiscon long enough to be photographed in it. She also took the phoitographs, and sent them to me. The best two (of three) are ( here, cut because the total size is over 110K )

not-so-secret feminist cabal

whumpdotcom generously let me borrow the one-of-a-kind Secret Feminist Cabal jacket he won in the raffle at Wiscon long enough to be photographed in it. He also took the phoitographs, and sent them to me. The best two (of three) are ( here, cut because the total size is over 110K )