Today's word of the day is Lexicon, a compendium of words and meanings taken from a body of source material.

When Orson Scott Card speaks his mind, he's always entertaining even when (or especially when) he mangles facts and logic to reach conclusions diametrically opposed to my own. But he also has an infamous tendency to overreach and express some ugly and indefensible views. Most recently he got downright personal and ad hominem about the copyright infringement lawsuit between J.K. Rowling and a publisher that is attempting to publish a fan's lexicon of the Harry Potterverse.

Card is outraged that Rowling would have the audacity to block a derivative work when her own series is so "obviously" derivative of works that have come before--including his own.

I feel like the plot of my novel Ender's Game was stolen by J.K. Rowling.

A young kid growing up in an oppressive family situation suddenly learns that he is one of a special class of children with special abilities, who are to be educated in a remote training facility where student life is dominated by an intense game played by teams flying in midair, at which this kid turns out to be exceptionally talented and a natural leader. He trains other kids in unauthorized extra sessions, which enrages his enemies, who attack him with the intention of killing him; but he is protected by his loyal, brilliant friends and gains strength from the love of some of his family members. He is given special guidance by an older man of legendary accomplishments who previously kept the enemy at bay. He goes on to become the crucial figure in a struggle against an unseen enemy who threatens the whole world.

This paragraph lists only the most prominent similarities between Ender's Game and the Harry Potter series. My book was published in England many years before Rowling began writing about Harry Potter. Rowling was known to be reading widely in speculative fiction during the era after the publication of my book.

Of course there are only four, five, seven, or sixty-four types of stories under the sun, depending on how you count them, including any number of epics about a young hero whose powerful mentor provides special training in an arcane skill, and who picks up friends and allies during a quest to confront and defeat a powerful evil menacing the land, world, galaxy, or universe. Ender Wiggin could be said to be a tragic hero in the tradition of Odysseus, since both are unwittingly or unwillingly manipulated into devising a sneak attack that wipes out an entire civilization (Buggers for Ender and Troy for Odysseus). In case you think Card's story descriptions are so eerily similar that they just have to be true, check out J.L. Bell's similar comparison between Harry Potter and the origin story that turned Dick Grayson into Robin, Boy Wonder.

Card's first bit of intellectual dishonesty comes from equivocating the common and unavoidable use of traditional archtypes with the verbatim lifting of text and descriptions--which is what I understand to be the central issue in the Lexicon lawsuit. Card then goes on for quite a bit about what a greedy, thieving, frivolous hypocrite he believes Rowling to be, what a "pretentious puffed-up coward" she is not to make Dumbledore's sexual orientation explicit in the books, and how she's surely "blown her wad" of creativity and is now incapable of writing any other books in the future. He also calls her insane, pathetic, ungrateful, bullying, and implies that she's being manipulated by a small army of suck-ups.

Card is entitled to his opinions just as I'm entitled to mine--which are that J.K. Rowling displays as much creativity and originality as any author can when writing within a long-established genre, that she has every right to protect her intellectual property, and that Orson Scott Card has just made himself look like a jealous twit with delusions of overinflated importance.

But if I can't deny Card his right to hold an unsubstantiated opinion or two, I also can't let him off the hook for his seemingly deliberate twisting of fact. There's no way an author as long-established and successful as Card could be as ignorant of copyright law as he pretends. As I said above, he starts by conflating things that aren't given copyright protection (basic plots and broad character archtypes) with things that are given copyright protection (the actual words Rowling uses and her exclusive right to control derivative works outside of established fair use exceptions). Card applies a misrepresentation of the facts to his misrepresentation of the law to arrive at a reckless and irresponsible prediction:

I fully expect that the outcome of this lawsuit will be:

1. Publication of Lexicon will go on without any problem or prejudice, because it clearly falls within the copyright law's provision for scholarly work, commentary and review.

2. Rowling will be forced to pay Steven Vander Ark's legal fees, since her suit was utterly without merit from the start.

3. People who hear about this suit will have a sour taste in their mouth about Rowling from now on. Her Cinderella story once charmed us. Her greedy evil-witch behavior now disgusts us. And her next book will be perceived as the work of that evil witch.

Talk about sour grapes! The reality of fact and law must be more complex and muddled than Card presents, or else the presiding judge would not be urging the parties to arrive at a settlement "because there are strong issues in this case and it could come out one way or the other. The fair use doctrine is not clear." It's safe to say that Rowling has at least a few arguable claims in her (and Warner Brothers's) 1,100-page complaint, and that her reputation won't be damaged to nearly the extent that Card is hoping and wishing for.

The Lexicon in question would be a subset of materials taken from an online encyclopedia of the people, places, creatures, spells, and objects of the Harry Potter series. The Lexicon would include descriptions quoted or adapted from the Harry Potter books, stills from the Harry Potter movies, contributions from presumably uncompensated online contributors, and some amount of original commentary and organization.

The ratio of these things would be one element determining how strong the case is that the work infringes on rights held by Rowling and Warner Brothers. Another element would be the extent to which the unofficial and unauthorized Lexicon damages the market for an official and authorized version that Rowling is said to be working on.

Pending a final ruling or settlement between the parties, I'll let J.K. Rowling's filing within the lawsuit also serve as an indictment of Orson Scott Card's attempts at character assassination and legal analysis:

"...I am deeply troubled by the portrayal of my efforts to protect and preserve the copyrights I have been granted in the Harry Potter books and feel betrayed by Steven Vander Ark, as a person who calls himself a fan. I am particularly concerned about [publishing company RDR Books's] continued insistance that my acceptance of free, fan-based websites somehow justifies its efforts to publish for profit an unauthorized Harry Potter "lexicon" directly contrary to my stated intention to publish my own definitive Harry Potter encyclopedia. Such a position penalizes copyright owners like me for encouraging and supporting the activities of their respective fan communities....

"RDR's position that fans of the Harry Potter series can simply buy two encyclopedias is both presumptuous and insensitive. RDR's position is presuptuous because it assumes that everyone would want to have two Harry Potter encyclopedias and insensitive in thinking that everyone that would want both could afford to purchase both. Although Harry Potter is now a worldwide success, it had its roots in a time when I was very far from wealthy. While I am extremely fortunate now, having had periods in my life when I worried about having enough money to feed and clothe my daughter, it is obvious to me that many people do not have money to buy every book that appeals to them....

"For seven years, Harry Potter was nothing more than an ever-growing pile of paper and notebooks on which I worked very hard whenever I could make the time. By the time of the publication of the seventh novel, I had been writing about Harry Potter for 17 years. As a result I feel intensely protective, firstly, of the literary world I spent so long creating, and secondly, of the fans who bought my books in such huge numbers. I feel that I have a duty to these readers to ensure, as far as possible, that Harry Potter does not become associated with substandard versions.... I believe that RDR's book constitutes a Harry Potter 'rip-off' of the type I have spent years trying to prevent....

"I am very frustrated that a former fan has tried to co-opt my work for financial gain. The Harry Potter books are full of moral choices and ethical dilemas, and, ironically, Mr. Vander Ark's actions tend to demonstrate that he is woefully unfit to represent himself as either a "fan of" or "expert on" books whose spirit he seems entirely to have missed...."

Today's word of the day is Orphan Works, copyrighted works for which it is difficult or impossible to locate the copyright holder.

Some of you might remember the Orphan Works Bill from a couple years ago during the last wave of copyright reform legislation. The bill included a controversial provision to carve out a copyright exception for "orphan works" whose owners couldn't be reasonably identified. The number of orphan works has been growing annually since 1976, when the United States changed from a limited-term opt-in copyright system to an opt-out system that remains in effect, potentially, for generations (currently the creator's lifetime plus 70 years).

Every story, email, or blog post you write automatically falls under copyright protection. So does every picture you draw and every photograph you take. Since everything you do is brilliant, and since everyone is still entitled to the standard "15 minutes of fame" treatment, it stands to reason that somebody will eventually want to share your words or images with the world, sometime before the copyright expires in the year 2078 or later. If the work has your name on it, it might be relatively easy for somebody to find you and obtain your permission to reprint or adapt your stuff. If all they have is an excerpt that doesn't include your name, they might find you by doing a search for the work online or in a database of similar material. But after that, the search may become too time-consuming or expensive to be worth their while.

When orphan works go out of print, or if they're not widely distributed in the first place, they may become lost to history. They are less likely to be reprinted for fear that some copyright holder will someday step forward with a fat infringement suit. This mainly concerns big publishers and other corporate interests, but individual book creators like me might also need to obtain rights for a poem, picture, or song lyrics to be included in a larger story--and it's a real hassle if these turn out to be orphans.

Photographers, graphic designers, children's book illustrators, and other visual artists had issues with the Orphan Works Bill because their works are most likely to be circulated without attribution and appropriated under the proposed law without recourse and with only nominal recompense. Authors and musicians would have been affected as well, but to a lesser extent, because text and lyrics can be searched for more easily than pixels.

The original Orphan Works Bill fizzled out in 2006, but now it's back in the form of two similar versions introduced in April 2008 in the House and Senate. Some of the old concerns have been addressed and new ones introduced. There's no telling yet whether the current bill will be defeated, amended, or passed as written, but the potential remains for some big changes to our collective rights and protections.

I'll post updates if there are further developments with the bill, but authors and illustrators should keep this issue on their radar screens.

Today's word of the day is Canon Sue, a stereotypically perfect fan-fictionesque character who appears in the official version of a story.

When the odometer clicked around onto the 200th episode of "Law & Order: Special Victims Unit", the producers celebrated with a very special episode starring Robin Williams. I could have said "featuring Robin Williams" or "with a special appearance by Robin Williams" but "starring" really is the most appropriate word. This was "Robin Williams: Special Victims Unit" with a supporting cast of SVU regulars.

Robin portrays Merrit Rook, a brilliant engineer with a tragic past, a disarming sense of humor, and a problem with authority. On trial for an anti-corporate prank that went too far, Rook chooses to defend himself in court. Despite having no legal training or court-appointed advisor, Rook dismantles the A.D.A.'s case, destroys an expert witness on cross-examination, and handily wins over all twelve members of the jury. His anarchist politics and clever mind win him the fawning adoration of the entire city including Sergeant Munch, who attends a Central Park rally in Rook's honor. When necessary, Rook's sympathetic backstory allows him to deflect criticism and monopolize the camera with emotional soliloquies. When a squadron of New York's Finest attempt to arrest Rook on a second charge, while he is unarmed and in a crowded public space, he manages to not only slip away but to disarm and kidnap veteran detective Olivia Benson in the process. After playing psychological mind games with Detective Stabler, Rook dramatically escapes from custody and vanishes, seemingly into thin air.

Something bothered me about this episode, but it wasn't until later that it hit me... Merrit Rook is a Mary Sue, or a Marty Stu, or Gary Gnu, or whatever you want to call the male version of...this:

Mary Sue is perfect. All of her friends are colorful. Or, alternately, they may be the palest of shadows next to the glow of her magnificence. She speaks at least seven languages and can communicate with small woodland creatures. She knows all about quantum physics. She has an excellent singing voice and plays at least one instrument -- probably guitar, violin, or flute, even in worlds where these instruments do not exist. She becomes, without effort, a world-class expert at anything she puts her hand to.

In fanfic she is often better than the canon hero in the hero's field of expertise. She will lecture canon heroes and canon villains on how to overcome their flaws, and can singlehandedly convert an Evil Overlord to the side of light simply by the power of her Goodness.

The problem with Mary Sues of either gender is that they are too good to be true and/or interesting. They overshadow the other characters, they lack emotional depth, and they often represent some idealized version of the author. They are, generally, a bad idea. The writing on "SVU" is strong enough to almost offset these issues but, in addition to not explaining how Rook is able to become a world-class defense attorney overnight, the character's emotional substance comes from a backstory in which he somehow became a world-class obstetrician overnight and correctly diagnosed a problem with his pregnant wife, only to have the actual doctor disagree and end up negligently killing the wife and newborn child.

Before this week, I'd have had a hard time imagining a Mary Sue in the "Law & Order" universe. The "Law & Order" franchise, for a long time, attempted to heighten its realism by using guest actors who weren't recognizable from other roles. When big-name actors appeared, they were used in smaller roles that allowed them to go against their usual casting. The show delves a little into psychology, when the police or district attorney need to get into a criminal's head to put them away, but the main focus has always been on procedure.

But I can understand that when you have an A-list actor willing to do the show--with some arm twisting from his off-stage friend, Richard Belzer, from what I understand--you want to showcase him as much as possible. So they let him impersonate a cop. They had him out-lawyer the lawyers. They had him manipulate the detective. He becomes an explosives expert overnight, and an experimental psychologist, and a social networking expert, and a shepherd, and a voice actor, and a cult celebrity, and as a teenager he drove a violent gang out of his neighborhood by burning down their clubhouse. Suddenly Merrit Rook is a Mary Sue in the canon of the show: a Canon Sue!

There's a writing lesson here, that if tropes that are usually associated with sloppy or amaturish writing can slip into the professional writing machine of "Law & Order", they can slip into anyone's writing at any time.

Be careful out there!!!

I thought it would be fun to do a few Picture of the Day blog entries instead of my usual Word of the Day ones.  This little guy is currently Picture of the Day at Wikipedia, and comes with a creative commons license that allows for remixing and redistribution.  So...what to do with him?  Write a story? Write a poem? Make a comic strip?

"Girlie-Girlie, woke up early, went to play with Mr. Squrirely..."

That could be the start of a picture book. Either that or a jumprope rhyme.

Eichhörnchen Düsseldorf Hofgarten edit.jpg from commons.wikimedia.org, provided by Fabien1309

Today's word of the day is: Reading

I did a reading this week at Cornerstone Books in Salem, Massachusetts. The Witch City!

On my way to the bookstore, I passed storefront signs for other readings, mostly involving tarot cards, palmistry, or Kirlian auras. In Salem, those kinds of readings happen a lot more frequently than the author kind. It made me wonder if there might also be a way to use my book to predict the future. Ask a question, turn to a random page, and maybe the third word in the seventh sentence will give you the answer you seek? Let's see...

"Can I actually predict the future with The Penguins of Doom?"

Page 86 says... "mother's"

It's open to interpretation, but there's got to be something there.


My reading took place on a gorgeous day in the middle of Massachusetts public school Spring Vacation Week, so I wasn't really expecting many kids to show up. "You spent your spring break where? The bookstore?" There actually were a couple kids who came in, but they just wanted to grab a quick book and be on their way. One grabbed my book as well as the latest Diary of a Wimpy Kid, and is not the first person to tell me that the two are complementary titles, so I will have to look into that further.

The audience members who stayed were children's and YA authors with questions about the publishing process, so that's what we talked about. It wasn't what I'd planned, but I had a really great time and sold a few books in the process.

I can also say that Cornerstone Books is a great place to find a book, and to linger with it and have a great cup of coffee or tea. Thanks so much to them for hosting me!

Today's word of the day is: Workshop

I'm back from Nashua, where the New England SCBWI conference was a huge success and my four-hour workshop on web design and blogging was well-attended and well-received. The grand finale was a live update of my website to include news about the presentation itself, thanks to a kind volunteer photographer in the audience.
In fact, with all of those other workshops going on, I was amazed that anyone wanted to come to mine at all. We really did have a great group of authors and illustrators who peppered me with enough questions to last the entire time--and we probably could have gone for another four hours if I hadn't lost my voice by then. Thanks, everybody!

Today's word of the day is: Twenty

The 22nd Annual New England SCBWI conference is in full swing and, in fact, I'm blogging on my phone from Laurie Halse Anderson's keynote (and she's very funny and inspiring, of course).

John Bell, Debby Garfinkle, and I arrived here yesterday afternoon by way of visiting the baby--who was thankfully well behaved for her visitors. I brought a photo album with me to Nashua, and conference critique registrar Valarie Giogas had her baby's pictures as well, so it felt more like a baby conference than a writing conference. The Honorable Carrie Jones (D-Ellsworth hopeful) said the pictures were "made of awesome" which goes to demonstrate her cool sense of language, wonderful sense of humor, and great taste in babies.

But getting back to the topic of writing, a disturbing moment... I had a discussion with someone who "read somewhere" a general rule that it takes 20 rejection letters before a first book publication. This statistic might be a general average, and I probably had almost that many myself, but this author was multiple-submitting unpolished manuscripts as quickly as possible to get her 20 rejections out of the way. Please, please, please don't do this! There are so many paths to publication that there's a different one for every author and every book. Collecting rejection letters like they're bottle-caps that can be turned in for "Pepsi stuff" is not the way!

Meanwhile, Laurie is still speaking. She's taken a picture of the audience for her blog--I'll add a link later as well as a photo of the view from the back of the room. You won't believe how many creative, talented, and committed folks that have gathered together in a single place.

Update:

Today's word of the day is: Road Trip!

Last weekend was baby's first road trip to New York for her cousin's 2nd birthday party.  Baby was quiet and well-behaved on the ride down and back, four hours each way.  Baby loves to travel--who knew? 

This weekend I'm off to Nashua, sans baby, but I am bringing along
dlgarfinkle
 and John Bell.  It's New England SCBWI conference time and Debby is giving workshops on writing series, writing humor, and breaking the rules; John is giving a workshop on plotting challenges in children's book; and I'm giving a double-session workshop on how authors and illustrators can establish and maintain an online presence using websites, blogs, and social networking.  This car ride is going to be a workshop factory on wheels!

Another chunk of my workshop is going to be on the topic of social networking and the use of social networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook. In addition to those are author/illustrator networks like JacketFlap and DeviantART, and general book networks like Library Thing, GoodReads, and Shelfari.

Here are my questions for you...

If you are an author or illustrator, my questions for you are...

• Which social networking sites do you belong to? 
  
• If you don't use social networking sites, what have been your primary deterrents?
• Do you prefer different sites for different purposes?
  
• What are your "rules" for requesting, accepting, or rejecting potential "friends"?
  
• How do you use the sites to promote or raise awareness of your writing?
• How do you use the sites to keep track of what other authors/illustrators are up to?
• How much time do you spend on social networking sites, and does it interfere with your writing/illustrating time?
  
• What would be helpful for you to know at a workshop about social networking?

If you are a bookseller, librarian, teacher, or reader, my questions are:

• Does having an author or illustrator's in your friend list influence your reading decisions?
• Does an author or illustrator on a social networking site seem more approachable?
  
• Have you corresponded with authors or illustrators through social networking that you would not have contacted otherwise?

You can email me in private, leave a comment here, or link to an elaboration on your own blog and I'll compile the best suggestions for everyone's benefit.  Thanks for your help!

And oh yeah, as of this week...

I got some great feedback on author/illustrator websites for my workshop -- what people have done, what they look for in other sites, and what can often be improved.  I was worried that I might get too technical and nitpicky so this was a good reality check and it's a lot of common sense. 

• A site should be unique, personal, and convey the personality of its owner who, in the case of an author or illustrator, is expected to be creative, expressive, and professional.
• A site doesn't have to be professionally designed and developed but many that aren't look amateurish or unfinished.  Do-it-yourselfers should look into using professional templates.  I like to browse Open Source Web Design for ideas.
• Contact information should be easy to find, and methods should be used to limit the harvesting of email addresses by spambots.
• Sites should be clean and uncluttered, easy to navigate, and consistent from page to page.
• Some author only update their sites sporadically, once or twice a year at most, in a process that requires the intervention of a web developer.  With the web options available in 2008, many of which require no technical skill or HTML knowledge, this is simply unacceptable.

I've used this workshop as an excuse to redesign my website from scratch, using a blogging software called WordPress as a content management system.  Still in beta right now, but it should be presentable by the conference.

Later this month I'll be in New Hampshire for the 22nd Annual New England SCBWI conference.  I'll be presenting a two-part workshop on establishing and maintaining an online presence for authors and illustrators--"online presence" being the term I'm using for the virtual version of yourself that may be the first impression someone gets of you and your books.

I probably have enough material already, between websites, blogs, social networks, electronic newsletters, and other things, but I'm very interested in broadening my presentation with ideas that have worked well for other people.

So...let's start with websites!

If you are an author or illustrator with a website, my questions for you are...

• What were the design and content considerations that went into your site? 
  
• How often do you change or update your site? 
  
• What resources do you provide that aren't available anywhere else? 
  
• Did you create your own site or hire a designer?
• What are some of your favorite author or illustrator sites and what do you like about them?
• What would be helpful for you to know at a workshop about establishing and maintaining an online presence?

If you are a bookseller, librarian, teacher, or reader, my questions are:

• Does an author or illustrator's website influence your reading decisions?
• What author or illustrator's websites have made you more enthusiastic about a book and why?
• What are some of your favorite author or illustrator sites and what do you like about them?
• If you could give an author or illustrator one piece of advice about designing a website, what would it be?

You can email me in private, leave a comment here, or link to an elaboration on your own blog and I'll compile the best suggestions for everyone's benefit.  Thanks for your help!

Today's word of the day is: Cawwie

It's going to be an interesting election this year. There will eventually be a presidential nominee from each of the major parties. If you live in the right state, you'll be able to vote either for or against comedian Al Franken. And if you're very, very lucky, you'll be in the right part of Maine to help elect YA author and 2k7er Carrie Jones to the state legislature.


I'll be voting in Massachusetts, so I'll have to support Carrie from afar -- but I will be wearing my button and lending my support. Carrie is one of the coolest, nicest, and most genuine people I've ever met, which makes it a bit puzzling why she'd want to surround herself by politicians. But she'll be a breath of fresh air for any deliberative body.

Yay, Cawwie!


Edit: goadingthepen has compiled links to just a few of the thousands of Carrie Jones well-wishers who poured their support into LiveJournal yesterday.  It's a grassroots movement!

Today's word of the day is: Guide

If you have a copy of the new Children's Writer Guide to 2008, check out the article by Chris Eboch.  I haven't seen it yet myself but I'm told that I'm quoted in the article.  Thanks, Chris!

It's a bad week for penguin products. If you have a Li'l Penguin Rock 'N Ride Plush Rocker toy, or one of its pony, bull, or dog cousins, get rid of it before it kills your child.  At this rate penguin-related recalls will become a regular blog feature.



And another reminder that the Toy Penguin figures from Plan Toy can cause laceration damage if the heads pop off.  The Penguins of Doom novels still have not caused any reported injuries.

Today's word of the day is: Consumer Safety

In the interest of the product-buying public, I want to make sure that people realize that the penguins of doom being recalled today by order of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission are completely unrelated to my Penguins of Doom book.

My Penguins of Doom has never caused anyone a greater injury than a paper cut. The other penguins of doom are wooden penguin-shaped toys with sharp metal points that constitute a federal laceration hazard.

My Penguins of Doom retails for $13.95 at bookstores and online. The other penguins of doom sell for between $15 and $20 at specialty toy stores.

My Penguins of Doom transports the reader to a magical world of danger and adventure. The other penguins of doom transport the user to the nearest emergency room for twenty stitches and a tetanus shot.

My Penguins of Doom should be given to children. The other penguins of doom should be taken away from children and returned to the store of purchase for a full refund--which could then, perhaps, be used to purchase a copy of my Penguins of Doom.

I hope I've sufficiently cleared that up.



Seriously, if you have one of these toys, go to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission page for instructions on how to get your money refunded.  You can also subscribe to email alerts so you have the latest information on what toys, clothing, or furnishings have been deemed too dangerous to use.  I get several of these alerts every week!

Curious George and the Rocket
By H. A. Rey
Houghton Mifflin, 2001

Our daughter was two weeks old when we brought her to the library to take out her first board book.  She's too young to express a reading preference, but not too young to have a card issued in her own name--hooray!  So while I'm no expert on picture books, I'm suddenly in a position to read and review them in my own unique style.

Curious George and the Rocket is a shortened version of the 1957 classic, Curious George Gets a Medal, reduced to board-book size for wee-little baby-children like mine.  Lost are classic scenes of George getting himself into mischief with an ink blotter, a mess of soap bubbles, some farm animals, and various museum exhibits.  What remains is George's mission training, successful rocket trip into space, safe return by parachute, and subsequently recognized status as the first monkey in space.  As a result, George seems uncharacteristically serious in this book and doesn't get into the kind of trouble we might normally expect.  In other words, George is all work and no play!

George's space mission is coordinated by a Professor Wiseman, whose academic credentials are never given, under the sponsorship of the Museum of Science, possibly as a publicity stunt although the scientific rationale would have been compelling and significant.  There doesn't seem to be an animal behaviorist on staff, unless the Man in the Yellow Hat is being employed as such, which would be a good idea because Professor Wiseman is apparently under the misapprehension that monkeys can read and write.

The book is sparse on details, which is a shame because the scenario presents an excellent opportunity to teach children about the early days of manned (and monkeyed) rocketry.  For example, George's bravery and the Man in the Yellow Hat's anxiety could have been highlighted by a brief recap of missions that had gone before...  

The first six monkeys loaded into Air Force rockets were all named Albert, and all of them suffered horribly in the name of science.  Albert I was launched into the sky in June of 1948, went 39 miles up, and suffocated to death before reaching the edge of space.  A year later, Albert II successfully made it into space but died on impact when his rocket crashed back to Earth.  Albert III died when his rocket accidentally exploded at an altitude of about 35,000 feet. Albert IV, like Albert II, also died on impact.  Albert V died in 1951 when his parachute failed to deploy. Finally, Albert VI actually returned alive from space, but died of his injuries two hours after landing.  

In 1952, when somebody finally realized that Albert was a terribly unlucky name for monkey astronauts, a pair of cynomolgus monkeys named Patricia and Mike made it safely up and back--except that they didn't fly quite high enough to actually reach space.

This was the state of monkey rocketry in 1957, when Curious George Gets a Medal was originally published.  The visionary author-illustrator team of H. A. Rey and Margaret Rey (here uncredited) apparently imagined that the first successful monkey mission would come from the academic and institutional realm, since the military hadn't had much luck to that point and NASA hadn't yet been founded. Thus enter Professor Wiseman and his backers at the museum.

Professor Wiseman can be lauded for including a video camera on George's flight, allowing the crew to view and track him in real time. He also provides George with a protective space suit that might have saved one or two of the Alberts if it had been in earlier usage.  However, some other of Professor Wiseman's mission parameters seem a little sketchy--the use of a launch platform made of flammable-looking wood, the close proximity of the ground crew while the rocket is firing, the seeming lack of sensors to monitor George's vital signs during the trip, the idea to attach a parachute to George rather than to the rocket capsule, and the reliance on George to activate his own escape sequence from the rocket after reentry--but despite the potential for disaster, the trip is an overwhelming success and George ends the book with a shiny gold medal.  

It wasn't until 1959 that a real-life monkey matched George's fictional space accomplishment.  A rhesus monkey named Mr. Able and a spider monkey named Miss Baker were the first living beings to safely make it into space and back again--although Mr. Able died four days later from a bad reaction to an anesthetic during surgery to remove an infected medical electrode.  Miss Baker lived out a very long spider monkey lifetime and is buried on the grounds of the US Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville, Alabama.

Had George's trip actually occurred in 1957, he really would have earned that medal, as well as the thanks of a grateful planet.  Lessons learned from American space monkeys and Soviet space dogs made it possible for human beings to reach orbital and suborbital space in 1961.

Bottom Line: The newly-shortened version of the book is recommended for its depiction of space travel but does very little to showcase Curious George's famous personality, his trademark penchant for getting himself into and out of trouble, and his carefree attitude toward life.  We see nothing of George's curiosity in the pages that remain from the larger work, so the protagonist comes off as regrettably generic. I enjoyed reading this to my daughter because I could go off on tangents about space travel, but I felt apologetic on George's behalf, as if I needed to explain that he really is a fun and clever monkey when he's not all serious and scientific.

<book review theater>

ME (using Man in the Yellow Hat voice): Look, George, you got a letter from Professor Wise Man!

ME (using Professor Wiseman voice): It's pronounced WEISS-man!

ME (using Man in the Yellow Hat voice): Professor Wise Man wants you to fly to space in his rocket!

ME (using Professor Wiseman voice): WEISS-man, WEISS-man, WEISS-man!!!

ME (using Man in the Yellow Hat voice): Professor Wise Man sure is a nice guy, isn't he?

ME (using Professor Wiseman voice): Aaaaaaaargh!!!

</book review theater>

Children of the Mind
By Orson Scott Card
(Tor Books, 1996)

I know several readers, myself included, who were blown away by Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card. They then found the sequel, Speaker for the Dead, to be equally as riveting and eagerly reached for Xenocide, book three in the series, with the highest of expectations--only to be slammed with disappointment. This otherwise serviceable book, with an original premise and interesting characters, crashes to an unsatisfying and confusing ending that combines the worst attributes of deus ex machina and sequel hooking. Back in the mid-90s, it seemed that only the most devoted of Ender fans dared to approach the fourth book, Children of the Mind. The rest of us avoided it like the descolada virus itself.Ender himself hardly appears in this book, and perhaps the most memorable character from Xenocide, OCD-laden genius Han Qing-jao, is missing entirely--only represented in CotM by tantalizing excerpts from her philosophical writings, which serve as thematic chapter headers. But Qing-jao's presence would perhaps have been redundant since she is far from the series's only deep-thinking philosopher and author of impactful works that have changed the lives of billions or trillions of people. In addition to Quing-jao, this would include Ender (author of a trilogy that has stayed continuously in print for over three thousand years), Valentine and Peter (who manipulated world governments through their pseudonymous writings as Demosthenes and Locke), Aimaina Hikari (whose works inspired attempted xenocide), Grace (whose writings inspired Hikari), Malu (whose works inspired Grace), and Plikt (who, as the speaker for Ender's death, has a lock on a future bestseller as well).

Only Ender's stepdaughter, Quara, seems to lack the bug for philosophizing and authorship, so of course the other characters use her as a punching bag for their verbal abuse--which highlights another annoyance I experienced with this book.  Every scene is either a dramafest of angst and confrontation or an excuse for long philosophical soliloquies that usually include at least one Shakespeare quotation.  Or often, both.  Almost without exception, every philosophical theory presented in the book is then subsequently picked apart and discarded as childish and simplistic compared to the unexpressed deeper thoughts that all of our genius characters are keeping to themselves.  This makes for one long, emotionally draining, and often pompous book.

Bottom Line: Every reader of thought-provoking science fiction, age 10 through 110, should pick up copies of Ender's Game and Speaker for the Dead. My prior warning to avoid Xenocide is tempered somewhat, but anyone who continues onward in the series should read Xenocide and Children of the Mind together and be prepared for an exhausting and confusing ride.

Today's word of the day is: Eco-Libris

Books are made of paper, which comes from trees, so why not plant new trees to offset the environmental impact of the books you buy? This greening of books is the idea behind the Eco-Libris website. True, it doesn't offset the energy and water resources required to produce the paper pulp and transport the finished product to the store, but it's very cool to slap on a sticker that says, "A tree was planted for this book." And yes, the stickers are printed on recycled paper using non-toxic inks.

Eco-Libris: Plant a tree for every book you read

Today's word of the day is: Gygax

Gygax: n. 1. A great name for a half-elven 30th level Figher/Mage with psionic powers, don't you think?

I've been thinking more about the recent death of Gary Gygax and why it struck me so profoundly. 

When an actor dies, we remember some of the roles he or she brought to life and the special place those movies or TV shows may have had in our lives -- like when Fred Rogers passed away, everybody had to acknowledge the impact his show had on an entire generation of children who learned that "everyone is special" because Mr. Rogers "likes you just the way you are."

When an author or screenwriter dies, we remember a person who created entire worlds, stables of characters, and plots.  For many people, the death of "Star Trek" creator Gene Roddenberry was especially impactful because Roddenberry created a much-beloved story universe, its major characters, and many of its most memorable plots--plus he saturated the entire series with his own personal optimism for the future of humanity. 

Gary Gygax wasn't known for bringing a character to life or for creating a story world, at least not primarily.  He was a meta-creator.  He made the rules that allowed other people to bring their own characters to life and set their own stories into motion.  Gygax's greatest contribution was the development and promotion of a creativity platform that allowed ordinary people to establish a setting, populate it with monsters, put together a workable plot, and breathe life into bold adventurers, mysterious wizards, cunning thieves, and pious clerics.  The system that Gygax made was easy enough for fifth graders to follow but complex enough to appeal to M.I.T. graduate students. 

So while there are many actors and authors in the world, we don't very often have a chance to mourn the loss of a person who is the heart and soul behind an entirely new form of media, "role-playing games," which are interactive and social in a way that books, television, or movies never could be. 

Today's Word of the Day is: Stuff

Stuff: n. 1. Collective term for a bunch of random things that have no connection with each other; 2. Mysterious substance in the middle of an Oreo cookie.

Firstly, happy belated birthday and bookday to carriejones!

Secondly, reaction is warranted to the untimely death of role-playing game legend Gary Gygax.  Although it's been a long time since I've had cause to roll the old 20-sided dice, I still have the AD&D hardcover books in a place of honor on my bookshelf and a fondness in my heart for countless hours of my youth spent trolling graph-paper dungeons, looking for hidden doors, and slaying monsters for their gold and experience points.  My friend, Eric Burns, has a more detailed remembrance that puts the life of Mr. Gygax into proper context:

For all his contradictions, for all his faults, for all his strengths and for all his weaknesses, this complicated, opinionated, genius man has had an impact on society as a whole that is literally immeasurable. I'm not misusing the word 'literally' there, either -- there is no way to measure how much influence Gary Gygax has had on the world. Certainly, the world of literature, of movies, of video games, of television (children's and adult) have all been profoundly affected by the things Gary Gygax did. Billions of dollars have changed hands based directly or indirectly on Gary Gygax's work. Take Gary Gygax out of the equation, and our entire culture becomes radically different. And Christ only knows what the internet culture would look like.

But beyond that, a man who was a monumental part of my childhood, my past, and a huge number of my friendships is gone. I listed out that long list of friends above -- but understand that's a tiny fraction of my friends from roleplaying. And a large number of my other friends are ones I haven't gamed with but who are themselves gamers. Gary Gygax gave me a social group. He gave me peers.

And he regarded me as a peer, all too briefly.

And I'm going to miss him. Terribly.

Thirdly, Baby Alexi turns three weeks old tomorrow and I've decided that she's not borrowing the car.  I base this on a set of observations and the following imagined scenario...

Borrowing the family car is one thing teenagers have been doing for decades and that's not likely to change between now and the time when Baby Alexi becomes Teen Alexi and gets her license.  It may be a hybrid car, or a flying car, or a car that costs $20 per gallon to fill up, but we're likely to have one and she's just as likely to want it.

My wife and I already know that Baby Alexi likes mirrors, and most cars have at least three that she could look at herself in--four if you count the one that folds down from the passenger-side sun visor.  She'd also want to clip her toy frog onto the rearview mirror and crank up the instrumental lullabies on the car stereo.  Then, although her pediatrician says she should be eating every three to four hours, we've found that Baby Alexi can sometimes start crying for food after two hours or even after one--which means that even if Teen Alexi eats before leaving the house, she'll almost immediately need to make a pit stop into a drive-in to feed her hunger. 

Now you can see how I imagine what Teen Alexi will be like behind the wheel--burger in one hand, bottle of milk in the other, checking herself in the mirror, playing with her stuffed frog, listening to instrumental lullabies, crying because she needs a diaper change--all instead of paying attention to the road...  Oh!  And did I mention that car rides put her right to sleep?  Baby Alexi hasn't yet managed to stay away for five minutes while strapped into her car seat, so factor that in and things look very dangerous indeed for letting Teen Alexi borrow the car in 17 years or so.

We'll try to say no to Teen Alexi for her own good, but somehow I don't think it will work.  We already have trouble saying no to her when she cries, and she's got such a set of lungs on her!