(no subject)

I've been a bit quiet because I developed the post-con-itis. Not a dramatic one - just some breathing issues and a slight loss of voice and a lovely fever and the need to sleep. I would've had the need to sleep in any case, just, possibly, not quite as overwhelmingly. And the voice didn't go until my teaching was finished for the week.

I am finding about myself that I don't like being called 'Ms Polack'. Con reports, in particular, seem to have 'Ms Polack' a lot and I wonder strange thoughts about the reporters. I like 'Ms' even less than I like my surname acquiring an extra 'l', which is good, because right now my surname acquires that extra letter 50% of the time. I would be in so much misery if I worried about that spelling, still!* But I do worry about 'Ms.' My totally favourite form of address is without a title at all ('Gillian Polack' - it really isn't hard) but if one must use a title, then 'Dr Polack' is preferable to the alternatives. Sometime in the undefined future, you may address me as 'Time Lord' if these choices are unsatisfactory, but I'd rather not be called 'Ms Polack.'
This is the grumpiness of a mild virus speaking.

I am grumpy about many things: not buying enough containers to store all my spices so my rearrangement has to wait until I get back to the shops in three weeks; my microwave dying and all the relevant shops forgetting to restock convection microwaves ("We have them, and yes, we'll take your insurance money for them - what, aren't there any on the shelves? Come back in a couple of weeks."); there being not much on TV (I'm sick - I'm allowed to watch TV! Where's my non-repeat SF?! - the only station that has something today doesn't reach my flat because of the shadow) and more. I have so much to whinge about and I'm so grumpy, but all you really need is a sample. The full list will leave you screaming. Anyway, it's all everyday stuff, and the only reason I'm whingeing is my virus, for one of it's symptoms is wild grump**.

My stuff of cheer*** can be found here: http://momentumbooks.com.au/authors/ This means we're into serious countdown! And I will do a giveaway, open anywhere in the world for anyone who buys Ms Cellophane in July who can show her in embarrassing positions****. The package will include a copy of the original Life through Cellophane and other items. I'll wait until Ms Cellophane is actually available before I announce it though.





*I should worry. It's hard to find my books if you look up the wrong name, as many people have discovered. In fact, one person said a little while ago "You don't even have a blog!" And indeed he was half-right for gillpollack does not have a blog.

**Another, obviously, is misplaced apostrophes.

***For yes, there is stuff of cheer.

****This is mainly because Momentum is so very innovative with e-books that it would be a really good idea to find out what can be done with them with evil intent.

(no subject)

The big thing I brought home from Continuum* was much thought about many subjects. That was the sort of convention it was.

One thing that I have drawn from panels and conversations was that when most writers write people-like-us (ie people whose background they understand deeply) they can nuance their depictions even when writing fairly formulaic tales. They have their own lives and the lives of people close to them. They have such a deep understanding of these lives that they may not even articulate that they are nuancing their characters - some writers tell me in class "This is the character forming itself naturally, telling its story." Those stories have been building up inside us, from people we know well.

When writers write people-not-like-us the vast majority of us seem to say "I need this kind of person in my story" and then nudge the person into the shape of the story. Much of this nudging comes from marrying popular stereotypes with the story needs, rather than developing the character from the same complex basis that people-like-us are developed. I heard several writers mention this at Continuum: the plot needed this gender or this sexuality or this skin colour and so a character was formed to fit it. I'm pretty sure that only minor characters were discussed in this context. It wasn't one writer or one panel - it was quite widespread. And not all writers work that way. I was concentrating on those that were talking about it, is all.

My half-realisation of the other day is that for some characters, this nudging isn't necessary. We have perfect character arcs for them. They're often the ones occupied by people-like-us, which is one of the many facets of this I need to ponder some more. But instead of choosing a minor sidekick to be the character that has thought deeply about gender identity and fought societal expectations to win through, why not make them the shepherd who becomes prince/princess?

There are so many classic fantasy plot arcs that would be enriched by making gender and sexuality core issues for the main character**. It adds to the richness of the novel to have a character arc reflected on more than one level. And it means that we can work with stories we know. We just have to learn to see and understand people who are different to us, which - to be very blunt - is something we ought to be doing anyway, as human beings.






*The little thing was the con lurgie. The in-between things were chocolate and books. Donna and Matthew don't know quite how much chocolate was packed into their car...

**This is what was staring me in the face and making me feel stupid. Angela Carter and others have written fairy tales along these lines, so why didn't I see it earlier?