If you’ve been following my small career, you would have noticed that I have a novel written called War Games. It’s a Space Opera Romance. I use that term explicitly because, although space opera is intrinsically romantic, that romance has more to do with the setting and scope of the literary landscape. Here, in War Games, the romantic relationship between two of the main characters is also an integral part of the plot, hence the addition of “Romance” as an additional identifier. I finished the novel late last year. And I’ve decided to serialise it (a chapter a week) for free on my website. Why? Well, for a number of reasons:

• I liked it and didn’t want it to get lost within one small category. That is, I didn’t want people to say dismissively of it, “Oh, it’s a lesbian story”, as if that’s somehow demeaning or not worthy of any wider consideration.

• From people’s reactions (m/m hawt, f/f meh), I wasn’t about to get much money from it anyway, so I thought I might as well try to spread the cheer rather than limit it.

• I couldn’t think of a generalist publisher to submit it to. (In my opinion, there’s enough space opera in there to not fit comfortably in the romance genre, and enough romance in there to not fit comfortably in the space opera genre. But, hey, that’s only my opinion.)

• I wanted to increase my profile through giving away fiction, in the hope that people would like my writing and help me on my journey to become a professional stay-at-home (as in, no Dreaded Day Job) author.

---

The genesis for War Games came from two sources. Firstly, it came from Smart Bitches, Trashy Books, with Sarah’s article on lesbian romance back in February of 2007. And secondly, it came from a discussion of Polish TV with my husband, J. Combine that with my love of science-fiction and you have a Space Opera Romance with a lesbian bias. No more and no less.The novel is full-sized; that is, it’s approximately 81,000 words, and has been through several self-edits. If you’re interested in reading it, you can go here to get the prologue and first chapter. ::Deep breath:: Happy reading!

I suppose this is a roundabout way to promote the latest Radio Free Bliss podcast, but I thought the subject was rather interesting, so decided to mention it specifically.

A new sub-genre. Ecofiction, or ecological fiction. According to Lee Barwood (who I interview) it’s suspense or romantic suspense with an environmental twist. It can be from either side of the camp, the environment or corporate interests, but should really go beyond the standard cardboard villains. That is, you should understand the motivations of both sides of the argument while reading the book.

You can find further resources on ecofiction here and here.

Lee Barwood is the writing name of Marlene Satter, who is also a terribly interesting person in her own right. Both Marlene and Lee are very passionate about everything they’re involved with, from animals to finance to music. I ran out of time before I ran out of questions. So, if you’re interested in hearing what a freelance editor looks at when she reads your manuscript, how music could indeed have been the first human language, and more details on ecofiction, please head over to Radio Free Bliss for a listen. I think you’ll really be entertained.

I read in The Register last month that a week-long clerical seminar with the goal of increasing confessional throughput was held at the Vatican in Rome. The result is that many sins that were previously defined as “venial” (a temporary loss of grace that “does not result in a complete separation from God and eternal damnation in Hell” — source, Wikipedia) have now been promoted to “mortal” (your ass is toast ad infinitum — source, Kaz Augustin).

Among the new mortal sins are drug trafficking, pollution, social injustice and genetic manipulation. Now, this is a fairly nebulous list, and I sincerely hope that the Vatican is applying its usual exactitude to this problem so we may all breathe easier. After all, these were the guys who really figured out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (infinite, but they’ll all need a good foot massage afterwards).

Using generally known principles, if you litter because you’re a forgetful slobasaurus, then that’s a venial sin. Three Hail Marys and we’re sweet. However, if you look around for a bin, can’t find one, don’t want to put your candy wrapper in your pocket/handbag because it’s sticky, and end up flicking it onto the ground when you think nobody’s looking, then that’s mortal, baby … and don’t let the door hit your backside as you descend into the eternal fires of the damned.

Likewise, genetic manipulation. Doesn’t matter if you’re trying to take over the world and turn all humans into mindless automata who’ll obey your every whim, or find a cure to some rare congenital disease. God hates you.

The problem with increasing the moral weight of particular sins is that the minute you upgrade your list, the number of ambiguous situations start multiplying like rabbits in a warm, secure warren. If pollution is a mortal sin, is using a 5-star energy-saver washing machine only a venial sin? What about smoking a cigarette? Are we talking lung cancer and Hades here? Seems a bit harsh, even for a non-smoker like me. What about priests who drink beer (and God knows (no pun intended) there are a few of them around)? Will they go straight to hell because alcohol is a drug, never mind if it’s more socially acceptable than, say, marijuana? Or do they get a special Get Out of Hell card because they’re on the ecclesiastical payroll?

I love lists like this. They are bit like the blog on inflation I penned some months ago. (That is, inflation is only 3% if you don’t own or drive a car, buy insurance, seek medical care, have kids still in education, pay rent, pay rates, own a property or rent a property, use electricity, town water, etc.) If drugs, pollution, social injustice and genetic manipulation are now mortal sins, then you’re okay, as long as you don’t drink tea, coffee, herbal tea or alcohol; don’t breed animals or plants, not even for that local Terrific Tomato Festival; don’t own a single electricity-inefficient appliance; don’t drive anything bigger than a scooter; don’t buy from supermarkets or businesses whose owners are rich; don’t smoke cigarettes; don’t go for relaxing drives in the countryside; and, to be honest, don’t breathe because, really, you’re nothing more than a carbon dioxide emitter when all’s said and done.

Of course there’s an easy out to all this and it’s actually provided by the Vatican itself. One of the differences between a venial and mortal sin is the amount of deliberate intent there is in your soul. So, if you deliberately cultivate ignorance of everything in life (and, say, forget you ever read this blog), you’re well on the way of needing only a couple of rosaries to get off scot-free. Meanwhile, for the rest of us, it’s just as well that our souls are incorporeal or it’ll start to get crowded Down There real quick.

DISCLAIMER: This blog is no substitute for authentic theological advice. In situations of ambiguity, please consult your local cleric. Alternatively, you could also try thinking.

And my good friend, Maria, picks up the gauntlet. Welcome to the Land of Righteous Indignation, M! It was getting pretty lonely here for a while.

If an agent has a blog I know about, I read it. I consider it part of my education into what it takes to be a professional writer. And if any agents are ambling past, reading this (you’re lost, aren’t you? You should’ve taken a left at Albuquerque), I’d really like to thank you for the time you take to blog. If a picture is worth a thousand words, an agent’s blog is worth a thousand SASEs!

That doesn’t mean I agree with every opinion that’s offered by an agent. And, to be honest, opinions vary and conflict from one agent to another, as well. However, for the sake of this blog, one I read recently said that an author’s blog should only be used as a vehicle for an author to take about author-y things. Ixnay on the personal tuffsay. If you combine that with the prevailing wisdom that you should blog regularly several times a week, then it means that I have to come up with exclusively author-type posts 3 times a week.

Yikes! And also, not possible.

Do you know how slowly publishing moves? I’ve seen livelier glaciers on Jacques Cousteau documentaries. (ZZzzzzzzz…) So, considering that there are months (if not years) between releases and news on submissions, what writing-related stuff am I supposed to blog about? I’ll be honest with you; I think I’ve done my dash with some agents, because I so often dip my toes in things such as economics, religion, politics and the Great Pumpkin, and if agents ever come here, they’ll see that I’m too opinionated for my own good and have an unhealthy obsession with alcohol. However, to my credit, I also don’t bore you with how much cough medicine I took last week when I had a killer of a cold (and I did), so I guess it all evens itself out.

Writing. For a change. If you’ve visited my blog, you’ll see that my current wip is a novel with the working title of Quinten’s Story. (I’m not happy with that title, but it’ll do for now.) It’s set in the Republic and is a standalone story, much like On Bliss, Prime Suspect and The Turk (still in wip). And it’s the story of a crippled human who finds himself drawn to a female shapeshifter. I’m going through some flashbacks at the moment, and trying to hit them all in one stretch so I don’t lose the flavour of what I’m trying to portray. I’ll pretty it up during edits. However, that’s not all. On my plate for tackling this month, I also have three other things, besides dear Quinten:

• A short story for the Return to Luna short story competition. (Entries are open till mid-June, if you’re interested.) I’ve finished that one. It came in at 4,000 words and I’m editing it at the moment.
• An excerpt for a romance, to see if I have the cojones to write something contemporary. Unfortunately, I haven’t started that one yet and the end of the month is next week.
• The start of an s-f short story, tentatively titled “Natural Ability”. I’m hoping it will come in at around 5,000 words, and it would be nice if I could at least get it started in April.

So it’s 3 shorts and one long, and that’s the rest of April and all of May (and a fair slice of June too, I should think) all wrapped up. I suppose I could try to string that news out across 3 months, but my heart’s really not in it. And if I get bored thinking about it, I’m sure you do too. So, if you want to read about writing again, I suggest you visit again around June. It’s back to normal programming (for better or worse) next blog.

Both Good Morning Silicon Valley and The Register reported this one, so I couldn’t run away from it. SIGH

Women are four times more likely than men to give out “passwords” in exchange for chocolate bars.

This finding came as the result of the latest annual Infosec survey (held outside Liverpool Street Station), and was held just before the Infosec Europe conference, which is scheduled to start next week in London. Out of 576 office workers surveyed, 45% of women (as opposed to 10% of men) were willing to provide their usernamsnames and passwords to complete strangers in exchange for a chocolate bar (no details on what brand of chocolate bar). The Register was a bit more sceptical in its coverage by adding that:

Little attempt is made to verify the authenticity of the passwords, beyond follow-up questions asking what category it falls under. So we don’t know whether women responding to the survey filled in any old rubbish in return for a choccy treat or handed out their real passwords.

Oh, I really really hope so. Because the alternative is too awful to contemplate. Look, we’re women! Just hold chocolate or ice-cream under our noses and we’ll crumple faster than a modern car’s chassis in a pile-up. Aw crap!

For the original press release, go here.

I don’t know how many of you look at the intertwining of politics and sport. It’s one of my casual interests, I’ll admit. And here’s another brick in the wall of repression that I’m seeing slowly getting built all across the Western world.

Feminism has a long and interesting history, which I really don’t want to go into here for the simple reason that I cannot do it justice. However, the idea that half of the world’s population is entitled to the same rights as the other half seems, to me, neither banal nor apocalyptic. If that makes me a feminist, so be it.

One of the truths in feminism is that women have fought long and hard for equal rights and these rights seemed never so available, never so promising, within the USA until the 1960s and the advent of the civil rights movement, the tide trying to lift all boats, as it were. This was not the recognition of women just because the men were away fighting (as was the case in World War Two), but a need arising from societal change and more professional women in academia and the workplace. (I’m compressing decades of history into two sentences here, so bear with me.)

If you agree that the post-60s era (to the present time) was kinder to feminism than the pre-60s era — and I’m sure most of you do — how do you explain the Sports Illustrated covers? I am entirely indebted to Charles Modiano’s article “Sports Illustrated’s Cover Barrier: Who Will Break the Bikini Line?” on the Cosellout website for providing my casual observations with solid ammunition.

Modiano points out quite clearly that, in the 1950s, “the decade of Sports Illustrated’s inception and hardly a period of progressive feminism, it was quite common to have about an average of five issues per year where a female athlete graced its cover. By the 1990’s that figure had been reduced to about 2 or 3 per year.”

Modiano also quotes Michael McCambridge’s 1998 book, The Franchise: A History of Sports Illustrated Magazine, in which McCambridge says:

“The magazine might have deflected some of these complaints [about the Swimsuit Issue] if it had done a better job covering women in sports. But it became a truism that the only time a woman was on the cover was when she was, in the words of one staffer, ‘a victim or a babe or both’. Monica Seles made the cover alone after she was stabbed in a tournament in Germany, but not after any of her 8 grand slam women’s titles. (She shared a cover in 1990) Nancy Kerrigan graced the cover after being clubbed, but not after winning the U.S. Figure Skating championships …”.

Since 2000, Sports Illustrated has scaled back to one cover of a female athlete a year:

Since 1990, the Williams sisters (Venus & Serena) COMBINED have not received as many covers (3) as Ted Williams — who retired in 1960. In contrast, at least five swimsuit models have graced the cover three times. The record for most SI covers by any woman is five — held by Elle MacPherson.

In 2006, one cover showed 6 athletes, half of them women. In the same year, the cover also sported 8 half-naked supermodels.

2007? One woman. Beyonce. In an orange bikini. Remember how the late-night show hosts were slavering over that issue?

2008? One so far … swimsuit model, Marisa Miller. In, ah, beads and a bikini bottom.

So what, you say? Everyone knows these are sports jocks, and they like (a) beer, (b) giant TVs with remote controls, and (c) women. Okay. But the truly eye-opening thing is that, even within those constraints, the equality quotient, if you will, has been consistently falling. You cannot tell me that Americans in the 1950s were any less sports-crazy than Americans in the present day. And yet, the number of positive female athlete role models on the cover of the same magazine has reduced to … almost zero?

What does that tell you about the progress of feminism/equal rights over the decades? Or, more generally, what does that tell you about progress in general?

I am of the opinion that, as the Western world veers ever more into conservative territory, the rights of all minorities get chipped away. Considering I’m a member of several minorities, this is of particular concern to me, and I keep an eye open to any area where I feel this erosion of respect manifests. (Where respect disappears, rights soon follow.) Sports is one of these areas. Most politically-active readers tend not to watch that arena, but over the past decade, I’ve come to realise that that’s a mistake, because observation of sports gives an insight into how average people think, and — perhaps more importantly — into how large companies think average people think.

Go have a read of Modiano’s article, which I have brutally chopped here to suit my own ends. It’s cogent, eye-opening, and deserves to be widely read.

I love Australia. The country is breathtakingly striking, and the people are breathtakingly complacent. They are also inveterate optimists, which has its good and bad sides. Take the last Federal elections. Wine was flowing in the streets following John Howard’s (well deserved) defeat. However, I have to say I wasn’t as hopeful regarding the incoming government. Call me a cynic. But, the year has barely begun, and already something’s happened that smacks more of Howard than A New Beginning under Kevin Rudd. From an article in The Age, dated 14 April (you have to be quick with these news items; some of them have the tendency to disappear off the paper’s website awfully quickly) … Now, before I continue, if you’re after the really important news in Australia, don’t look at the front page of the newspapers. All the important stuff is buried elsewhere, usually in the Opinion pages. This one was buried in the Technology section:

COMPANIES will be able to intercept the emails and internet communications of their employees without their consent under new laws being considered by the Federal Government to protect the nation’s critical infrastructure from a cyber attack.

The Attorney-General, Robert McClelland … [states that] … “There’s no question that breaches of both government and private sector computer networks have occurred already - in some instances as a result of mischief, in some instances to obtain security-sensitive information and in some cases to obtain commercial information.”

He cited an attack by hackers in Estonia last year that, in effect, shut down its Government for almost two weeks … They used thousands of computers controlled through viruses - known as botnets - to simultaneously access an Estonian Government website, overwhelming the server and crashing its entire network.

And monitoring employees’ email is going to stop a similar attack … how? What is the government expecting? An email like this?

Dear Piotr,
I’ve spoken to Boris and it’s all set. Starting tomorrow, at 6am, Moscow Standard Time, we hit Estonia with all we’ve got. Make sure the local high school chess club has been clued in and have synchronised their watches. I’ve also spoken to the guys in charge of the Storm botnet, and they’ve said this project is eligible under the “charitable griefer” category that they have budgeted for each year. So it all looks good to go! I’ll txt you later. Btw, how’s your sister? I know a great club a few blocks away. Tell her I’ll be happy to meet her there next Saturday.
Maks

Legislation written to monitor the emails of company employees shows an ignorance of how botnets, or even basic security, operate. The truth is, you don’t even need email to crack a company, as various social engineering experiments have shown.

If I may have a word to the Anglo, English speakers among the audience for a moment. Ahem. Those of us of a duskier hue and/or accented voice have a very sensitive ear to machinations such as this. You just have to go up to your local mature-aged 7-Eleven proprietor and say something like, “Hey, Ram, what does it mean when the government is thinking of monitoring everyone’s emails to stop hacker attacks?”

“Stop hacker attacks?” Ram will reply. “How can they stop hacker attacks by reading Sanjay’s aunt’s vadai recipe? More likely they are trying to monitor everyone to see if someone is speaking ill of the government. Ashish’s second cousin’s nephew, who works in Bangalore, told my wife, that a call centre chum recently discovered …” and so on.

You see, our sensitivity to bullshit like this has been honed for generations and, for us of the Global South, it has become an almost genetic trait. “Cut out corruption? Get rid of the other guys so you can put your own cronies in place, more like it!” “Eliminate estate tax? Yes, and increase VAT on staple goods so the poor people end up starving!” “Reinstate the judiciary? Ah, all but one, so you can still shaft the most influential judge!” “Save trees and emissions by changing to Booksurge? Yah, and it also happens to strengthen an impending corporate monopoly! Pfft!”. (Oops, how did that get in there?)

We are your barometer. Where we have been, you are now going. Welcome.

A friend of mine had a birthday last month (hey, Maria!), so I told her (as we live half a world away) to have a drink for me. Specifically, my all-time favouritest drink evah — scotch and water with two ice cubes. Bartenders have asked me if I’m really serious about that ice cube requirement. Well, it depends on the size of ice cube, but yes I am. I take my scotch very seriously, thank you very much. Scotch, of course, is also known as whisky. Not whisKEY, you Americans. WhisKY. No ‘e’. I was reading a Regency recently and the hero helped himself to a whisKEY. And it really pulled me out of the story because I was wondering whether the author was referring to Irish whisKEY or had just used the American spelling when she really meant whisKY. It’s not just me being a pedant because they really all taste different.

My favourite drink used to be a Scotch and dry, but that became just too difficult to order in the States, because most bartenders thought I was asking for a “scotch and rye”. (Swooning followed.) As I got older, it was just easier to top up with water (and some ice) than to go looking for dry ginger ale, which also varies considerably in taste.

This is also apropos a book J is reading at the moment — a collection of essays by lately deceased Polish writer, Zygmunt Kaluzynski. He described seeing the play “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?” and said it was a lot like drinking whisky, with a flurry of action, then settling down to nothing, before another flurry of action, followed by utter boredom, and so on. Poles, he said, would never “get” the play because they drink vodka, and vodka drinking is not like that. It is much more straightforward. You have a bottle, you have a tall-sided tumbler, you drink. Simple.

I hadn’t thought about it like that before, but there’s a grain of truth in what Kaluzynski is saying. Drinking scotch is, for me, as much ritual as alcoholic enjoyment. There’s the precise requirements of the drink’s components, the relaxed sipping, the little swirl you give the glass so the ice cubes clink against each other and the side of the glass. There’s the glass itself, which should preferably be clear and heavy, with a thick base and delicate straight sides. (Krosno know how to make kick-ass whisky glasses, even though they have the business sense of retarded cockroaches.*) There should be a little, but not too much, condensation on the glass from the ice; a little, but not too much chill, in the mixture. Yes, I suppose it sounds masturbatory, but what else can you do? It is scotch, after all.

And after you finish your first glass, you go through the process all over again. Ah, bliss. More than any other verboten item during my pregnancies — the cold cuts, the wine, the soft cheeses, the salt, the sushi and sashimi, the coffee and tea — I missed the scotch. I don’t gamble (well, not in organised casino or sports type deals), I’m not into retail therapy, I don’t smoke tobacco, except for the rare sheesha. My biggest vices are swearing like a trooper and drinking scotch, so I think I can be afforded some slack-cutting here. Cheers!

---

* I say this because the company was relying, almost exclusively, on trade with the United States for its viability. With the value of the American dollar, and consumer confidence, tanking (and everyone should have seen that coming, tbh), costs at Krosno have increased markedly, leading to a possible retrenchment of 1,200 people within the town of the same name. No town can afford that kind of attrition. It’s corporate stupidity, plain and simple.

I haven’t written about Singapore for a while. Which is a shame, because I live here for the moment. So here’s a Singapore post! The CIA’s World Factbook says, in part, that (cue harp music and release the doves):

Singapore has a highly developed and successful free-market economy. It enjoys a remarkably open and corruption-free environment, stable prices, and a per capita GDP equal to that of the four largest West European countries.

Okay, let’s take the first bit, the “successful free-market economy”. Free-market means no government interference, right? “In a market economy, businesses and consumers decide of their own volition what they will purchase and produce, and in which decisions about the allocation of those resources are without government intervention [my emphasis]“, to quote Wikipedia. (As long as we’re not discussing the sexual peccadilloes of various First, Second, and Third World dictators, I think it’s okay to use the W. Yes, yes, I admit being lazy. Let’s just go with this one, okay?)

But if Singapore is so remarkably free-market, then why does the University of Liverpool, to use one of many examples, have this to say in the unrestricted portion of an article on Singapore entitled Singapore Inc. versus the private sector: are government-linked companies different?:

As part of its postindependence industrialization plan, the Singapore government assumed a proactive entrepreneurial role by establishing state enterprises (called government-linked companies, or GLCs) in key sectors such as manufacturing, finance, trading, transportation, shipbuilding, and services.

[ed: Interestingly enough, according to the CIA Factbook, Singapore's economy depends on -- can you guess? -- electronics, chemicals, financial services, oil drilling equipment, petroleum refining, rubber processing and rubber products, processed food and beverages, ship repair, offshore platform construction, life sciences, entrepot trade. Hmmm, is that a GLC bulge in your government portfolio, or are you just trying to impress me?]

Oops. Sorry to interrupt, UoL. Please continue:

In this respect, Singapore was different from Hong Kong SAR, whose economic growth was driven by private enterprises [ed: that's big, bad China we're talking about, btw], and other East Asian economies like Japan, Taiwan Province of China, and the Republic of Korea, where active industrial policy did not involve widespread government … [ed: um, intervention? interference? injections of humongous amounts of cash? Something like that, I'm sure. What a terrible place to cut the freebie abstract!]

So, okay, I get “highly developed”, and I’ll give a big tick for “successful”. But “free-market”? Now, I’m sure that the CIA never ever intends to ever deceive a soul about anything, but, nah, free-market it ain’t.

Let’s move on to the “remarkably open and corruption-free environment”. And juxtapose it with a short article from a local newspaper, imaginatively called “The New Paper” from 02-April-2008. Namely,

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong [ed: the son of Singapore's first PM, Lee Kwan Yuew (LKY)], 56, says he is seeking a successor to take over his position [ed: that is, Prime Minister, just in case you missed it] before he reaches age 70. The political talent will [now be] aged 30 or early 40s.

Yep, nothing closed and corrupted about having a Prime Minister (who was himself chosen by this father) choosing his own successor 14 or so years into the future! Sounds remarkably like a solid foundation for democracy, doesn’t it? Just like creating a brand-new position called “Minister Mentor” for LKY after he retired, so that he can still wield incredible influence over government machinations.

Can’t say I blame the guy, in a way … we all know about our children running off the rails, don’t we? How can you trust them? All we can do is ground the little sweethearts, whereas LKY can get an entire country’s government to create a sinecure for himself so he can make and break entire lives and keep his PM son in line. Man, wish I had something like that for the next time The Wast argues with me over something! What power! And, knowing me as well as you do, you just know that I wouldn’t do anything to misuse it, don’t you?

Also along the “open and corruption-free” line, there is nothing undemocratic or closed from the, admittedly anecdotal, grumbles of non-Chinese executives who agree that there really is no glass ceiling in the country … as long as you can converse in fluent Mandarin, with the appropriate family name, at the final interview. ::rimshot::

And you lot think economics and politics are boring? Pshaw!

POSTSCRIPT: Just to show that two people can read the same article and take entirely different points away from it, here’s Mr Wang’s perspective on the Prime Ministership succession issue.