It’s Bacon All The Way Down… Or, Help Support BACONPALOOZA!

Baconthology Cover

Baconthology Cover

I am pleased to announce my involvement in BaconPalooza II, a fundraising project for children with autism. This event is spearheaded by John Ordover, founder and CEO of JJO Marketing, who is also a former Pocket Books editor responsible for overseeing licensed Star Trek novels. Bacon-Palooza II will have a softcover program guide, titled Baconthology, which will feature “baconized” stories from New York Times Bestselling and award-winning authors who have generously donated their work, and a brand-new story of mine, titled “The Hog of the Baconvilles,” loosely based on a novelette by some old British author whose name escapes me at the moment.

The fundraiser will happen at the beginning of March at the SoHo Gallery for Digital Art. All attendees to BaconPalooza II will receive a FREE softcover copy of Baconthology (a $25.00 value). I’m fortunate to be in the company of such authors as Greg Cox, Lucienne Diver, Rich Handley, Carlos Hernandez, Kij Johnson, Amanda Jette Knox, Annie Reed, Mike Resnick and Brad Torgerson, and I’m extremely glad to be in such company–and for such an important cause!

BacoonPalooza II
March 1-3, 2013
The SoHo Gallery for Digital Art
138 Sullivan Street
New York, NY 10012
(800) 420-5590 / (212) 228-2810
(e-mail sgdaintra@gmail.com regarding advertising opportunities)

For further information regarding Bacon-Palooza II, please go to http://www.baconpza.com/index.html

Unfortunately, since it’s in NYC, I won’t be able to attend, but I urge any of my readers who live anywhere near there to support the cause and attend. There will be bacon buffets every day with a special one on Sunday, I believe; you can eat bacon candy, drink bacon vodka or bacon mimosas. There will be live entertainment and movie screenings. I really wish I could be there myself!

Support the cause: attend Bacon-Palooza II!

Attack the Block movie review: “Nobody f***s with The Block!”


Attack the Block is the second really good SF movie I’ve seen this summer, possibly even better than Cowboys & Aliens! (I’m not counting comic-book fantasy movies, like Thor, or Green Lantern or Captain America,—and I confess I have not, as yet, seen Green Lantern.) The Simon Pegg/Nicholas Frost movie Paul was very disappointing; rather than taking genre clichés and turning them on their heads the way their groundbreaking Shaun of the Dead did, the comedy duo turned in a limp parody which included a number of the obligatory fart/poo/pee jokes which seem to be taking over comedy these days. So as far as SF movies this year, although Cowboys and Aliens was fun, it was, for various reasons, ultimately not as satisfying as Attack the Block.

Interestingly enough, this film shared some of the same team that produced Pegg/Frost’s Hot Fuzz, and has Nick Frost in a supporting role. The rest of the cast is, I believe totally unknown here in North America; but with this film in their background, I’m sure the actors will soon be joining the A-lists. That is, as soon as they get a little older. Seems that most of the cast of this movie is under 21. And if they’re not as young as their characters, they do an excellent job of “playing young.”

Here’s the setup: it’s November 5, present day (approximately), and the fireworks are bursting all over London (for North American readers, Nov. 5 is Guy Fawkes Day, and it celebrates the Houses of Parliament’s narrow escape from being blown to smithereens back in the 16th century. Since the plot involved gunpowder, Nov. 5 is usually celebrated the way Canada Day or the 4th of July are in North America—or Cinco de Mayo. (The familiar jingle goes “Remember, remember, the fifth of November/Gunpowder, treason and plot/I see no reason why gunpowder treason/Should ever be forgot” or variations on those words.) As the movie opens, we see something bright approaching the Earth through the familiar night skies. New nurse Sam (Jodie Whittaker) is on her way home at night in South London when she is accosted by a gang of hooded and masked boys, some black and some white—and relieved of her purse and a ring her boyfriend (who is helping the Red Cross in Ghana) gave her. As she is being relieved at knifepoint of the latter, something from the sky hits a parked car next to the group and they are all thrown around a bit by the explosion. Sam takes advantage of the confusion and runs off.

Some want to chase her, but the leader of the group, who we find out is named Moses (John Boyega), decides to investigate the car, which has a large hole in the roof and broken windows, to see if there’s anything in there worth stealing. He sticks his head in the broken window and starts rummaging, but is attacked by something small (about the size of a large backpack), very toothy, and rather grey, furred, but slick and repulsive-looking. He ends up on the ground with the thing attempting to bite large chunks out of him, but he stabs it with his switchblade and it runs off. He assures his cohorts that he’s going to track that thing down (“What the f**k was that thing,” they ask, “some kind of orangutan?”) and kill it! We realize at that point that these are young teenagers.

The boys, armed with various weapons that include sticks and bottle rockets (the lone white boy (Alex Esmail), named Pest, is obsessed with fireworks, carrying around “bangers”—not the kind that go with mash—bottle rockets, M-80s and the like); some are on foot and some are on bicycles.

Moses and his crew—we eventually learn that he, at 15, is the oldest—track the “thing” down to a shack in or near a construction site and, after a softening up with some of Pest’s bottle rockets and bangers, beat it to death. Now that they’re sure this is an alien being, Pest says something like “They thought they’d invade London, but they picked the wrong place! Nobody f**ks with The Block!” We learn that these youngsters live in a tall council building they call The Block, though its real name is Wyndham Tower. As a nice little in-joke, that works. The Block has four courts (the four sides) named Wells, Clarke, Huxley and Moore (though whether that’s C.L. or Alan is unknown) and the tower is bounded by Ballard Street, Adams Street, Herbert (for Herbert George Wells) Way and there’s a side-street named James Street—I’m assuming to go with Ballard. The boys (and Sam, though they don’t know it yet) all live in the tower.

As the boys head back to the tower, dragging their trophy, we see in the night sky, through the titles, a large group of glowing objects headed downward. On their way back, the gang stops to harass Moses’s cousin and a few other young women then, in the tower they meet Brewis, waiting for the elevator; they head for the nineteenth floor, where Ron (Nick Frost) sells weed for Hi-Hatz (Jumayn Hunter).

Moses and his crew on their way to save LondonAnd here’s where the real movie starts, because as experienced movie-goers, you and I know that the glowing lights are more aliens, and we know they will attack Moses and his gang. When the explosions of more aliens hitting the streets are seen from the 19th floor, Moses and the boys—who are now experienced alien killers (as Ron says, “You boys discovered a lifeform unknown to modern science, and you kicked its head in!)—decide to set out and cleanse London of its off-world invaders. So they head down the stairs, each one peeling off to grab some kind of weapon from his home (and giving bogus answers to parents and guardians as to where they’re going) including a baseball bat, which I found interesting; this is, after all, London. What? No cricket bat? But their first encounter is almost their last one! These aliens are not small and grey—these aliens are the size of gorillas, eyeless and black-furred–with many glowing teeth and large claws!

I really can’t say much more (though I’d love to give a blow-by-blow description) about this movie, for fear of spoiling it. The fun is in watching a gang of teenagers defending their home turf, and what we learn about them—but more importantly, what they learn about themselves and each other. It’s a coming-of-age story, it’s a bonding story and much more. Suffice it to say that it all hangs together, the acting and the minimalist alien costumes are superb, and I had a rousing good time watching it. Take note of the nine-year-old wannabe gangstas called Mayhem and Probs—the kids are a lot of fun. The kids are all believable actors, the locale (all action taking place within a few-block radius of Wyndham Towers) sufficiently low-rent—and Wyndham Towers plays an important role in and of itself—and the climax is satisfying. On a ten-point scale I’d give this about an 8 or 8.5!

Canute Strikes Back/Revenge of the Canute; a short follow-up to my grammar post.

A coin with Canute's head on it

I keep finding reasons to expand this grammar talk. Let’s add “loose” and “lose,” shall we? Hey, people: “lose” is the opposite of “win.” “Loose” is the opposite of “tight.” Please stop confusing the two before I completely “loose” it!

After the previous blog’s rant about “ya” and “yah,” I found someone who did it exactly the opposite way: “The recommended grace before a meal is not: Rub-A-Dub-Dub thanks for the grub, yeah God.” Thanks for playing, but that’s the correct place for “yea.”

Addendum to the “its” vs. “it’s” confusion—BC Hot House’s Tomato Gems “Mini tomato medly” (sic) includes this line: “Its’ rosy hue adds extra appeal to the already pleasing tomatogems mix.” Well, David and Sarah Ryall, of Delta, BC—there is no English word “Its’“! The apostrophe, no doubt added in a futile attempt to appease the angry gods of punctuation, only serves to add confusion to your advertising spiel. (The mini-tomatoes, however, were tasty.)

And” and “an“—just read this on the internet: “it sounds like and amazing idea”—confusion or typo? Hard to say. It’s not the first time I’ve seen those two confused. (Italics mine, by the way.)

My wife (the Lovely and Talented Lynne Taylor Fahnestalk [http://www.smilingdragonfly.com] wonders why I didn’t address apostrophes, as in possessive cases. Well, I forgot. Let’s hit possessives and plurals, shall we?

It’s relatively easy. In nearly all cases, we do not pluralize by adding “apostrophe s“! I’ve spelled it out here so that you won’t be hit with a succession of single and double apostrophes. So to make a plural out of a single, we don’t go from dog to dog’s or car to car’s! (There used to be a store on Wetmore Ave., in Everett, Washington, that proudly advertised “stovies” as a product they sold. Let’s not go to that extreme, okay?) There are cases where, for example, you are pluralizing a single letter, and will use an apostrophe to make it clearer; but I generally reword my sentences so I don’t need to do that. (Example: “The classes’ scores included only three A’s and three B’s. The rest were all C’s with a smattering of D’s.” In my opinion, the sentence is perfectly clear without those apostrophes: “The classes’ scores included only three As and three Bs.” And so on.

To make a possessive out of a singular noun, just add “apostrophe s.” So the bone belonging to the dog would be the “dog’s bone.” The pen of Bob would be “Bob’s pen.” Unless his name is “Bobs” you would never say “Bobs’ pen”—and actually, even if it was, you wouldn’t. If the word ends in “s” you should correctly add “apostrophe s” as follows: “Babs’s horse threw a shoe.” If the word is a plural that ends in “s” you just put an apostrophe after the “s” as shown here: “The riders’ cheeks were flushed with the wind.” Over the last fifty years or so, those two rules have become quite confused in the public’s mind, with many thinking that if any word ends in “s” you just add an apostrophe after. Not so. A local Wal-Mart has a section labeled “Boy’s Clothes”—really? Which boy would they be for, out of the millions in Canada?

Some people are confused about apostrophes used with dates; as in is it “1960′s”? How about “the 60′s”? No, both of those are wrong. The correct usage is “1960s” and “the ’60s” or “the sixties.” Although it appears that on Facebook the ’90s are now the “old times.”

Period of time” is another favourite. Folks, it’s totally redundant for most usage. Except for menses and punctuation, “period” refers to time. Period. “After a long period of waiting, we were rewarded with the train’s appearance.” Or, “After a long time waiting, we were rewarded…”; never “After a long period of time waiting…”. (It would be better to say, in my opinion, “After a long wait, we were rewarded….)

How about hyphens? I won’t bore the average user with talk of “em-” or “en-dashes,” but some people call a hyphen a “dash,” which is not actually its name. For the most part, hyphenated words are used when two or more of them are used as modifiers for a following word, but the first modifier actually modifies the second one. For example, criminals like a sawed-off shotgun because it’s more easily concealed than a full-sized one, and which is also why they’re illegal most places. Here we have two modifiers for “shotgun” and two for “one,” which is why we add the hyphen, making “sawed” the modifier for “off” (more or less) and “sawed-off” the modifier for “shotgun”; ditto for “full” and “sized.”

I just finished reading Lee Child’s most recent Jack Reacher book, Worth Dying For,, which has a couple of British usages scattered here and there. Lee, like the Irish writer John Connolly, writes almost as if he were American; however, there are certain phrases no American (or native-born North American) would use, in my opinion. One is the word “called,” as in “He was called Reacher.” To a norteamericano, it sounds like you’re giving an alias: “His name is Fred, but he’s called Chuck.” We say, “His name is Reacher.” Always, to the best of my knowledge, unless it’s a nickname, as in “His name is Joe Hill, but they call him ‘short-arm Joe.’”

Another Brit usage, probably used here because in some ways the Brits are more pedantic than we (at least the writers), is the phrase “sawn-off shotgun,” used twice or more in the above-mentioned opus. No offense, Lee, but have an American look at your books before you send ’em to your editor, as editors don’t check these things any more, apparently. We say “sawed-off shotgun” exclusively. I’ve read almost too much fiction, and have never seen the (actually grammatically-correct) phrase “sawn-off shotgun” before.

And another addition to subject-verb (dis)agreement, this one from a news story about possible government (Canadian) suppression of science and/or scientists: “There is simply no ifs, ands or buts about that.” Are that right? Here’s a second one out of today’s Vancouver Sun (photo caption): “A swarm of bats move through the sky near downtown Austin, Texas, looking for food.” The caption writer obviously thinks that “bats” is the subject, but s/he’s wrong: the “of” in “of bats” makes it a dependent clause, so “swarm” is the subject.

If the writer were British, I could understand mistaking subject/verb agreement, as they do it differently: “The Boy Scout troop go to camp all summer long” instead of “The Boy Scout troop goes to camp…” because “troop” is a noun that means a plural entity. They are taught that if the noun, although singular, refers to a plural entity, you use a plural verb. We were taught the opposite, which makes the British usage a little weird, because the word “troop” itself is singular; that is, it’s a single troop comprising several boys.

Speaking of “comprising,” please don’t use the phrase “comprised of” in place of “comprises“–for various reasons, you should structure your sentence so that “Troops of boys from many states comprised the Scout Jamboree,” instead of “The Scout Jamboree was comprised of boys from many states.” Here’s a very good discussion of “comprised”: http://grammarsource.com/2007/03/26/comprised-v-is-comprised-of.

How about using the wrong word in context? From Facebook, Aug. 5, 2011: “It’s pretty funny how many of those words that I know I used to know the definition of that I know longer remember without contextual prompts.” Too bad he “know” longer remembers those words.

If you see the wrong apostrophes or quotes in any of the above they’re not my fault. I tried putting in the correct ones, but computers have a will of their own. Or programs do. I will preview this and see if it has changed. If the wrong ones are there I can’t seem to stop the blog from doing that.

This is a comparatively short blog, but I’ve been busy with a lot of stuff. Reviews coming up soon. I promise.
Thanks for bearing with me. (I’d put a “baring” joke, but I’m too tired.)

Cowboys & Aliens review: A fun “popcorn” movie…

Cowboys & Aliens Poster

Cowboys and Aliens, directed by Jon Favreau, is the new Western/SF mashup in theatres starting today. (Favreau, as you know, directed Iron Man.)

The year is 1873, the place is the desert near Absolution, Arizona. Daniel Craig‘s character awakes in the desert after a confusing dream of bright lights; he is shoeless, and has what appears to be a grazing bullet wound on one side, plus a strange metal bracelet on his left wrist. He has no idea who or where he is, but finds a tintype of a young, attractive woman half-buried in the sand near him, which brings back some more confusing memories of the same young woman. While he is sitting on the sand he is accosted by three dirty, mangy-looking cowboys who have fresh scalps attached to their saddles. They, thinking a man with a bullet wound, no shoes and a metal cuff must be an outlaw or escaped convict, decide to take him prisoner, hoping to get a reward.

Within minutes, Craig is wearing their clothes, shoes and gun and headed for the nearby town, thus immediately proving he has not lost his action skills since his last James Bond movie (Quantum of Solace). Upon arrival in Absolution, Craig meets the town preacher (Clancy Brown), gets his wound sewn up and gets into conflict with Percy (Paul Dano), an arrogant young bully who thinks he can get away with anything in this town because his father’s the head honcho, “Colonel” Woodrow Dolarhyde (Harrison Ford). Craig also meets the town bartender, called “Doc” (Sam Rockwell), and his Hispanic wife Maria(Ana de la Reguera). He meets a young woman, Elle (Olivia Wilde), in the bar and is captured by the local sheriff, Taggart (Keith Carradine), who knows he’s Jake Lonergan, a wanted criminal.

Taggart puts Percy and Lonergan in a wagon to send them to the Federal Marshal at Albuquerque for arraignment and trial that night, but some mysterious lights in the sky turn out to be flying machines that attack the town, blowing things up and kidnapping various townspeople, including Doc’s wife, the sheriff and Percy. Jake discovers his mysterious bracelet is a blaster, and also shoots down one of the alien flying machines. The pilot escapes—nobody sees what “he” looks like, but a townsperson is brutally and noisily killed in the escape—and Dolarhyde and the remaining townsfolk, including a kid (the sheriff’s grandson), a dog (that belonged to the three men who initially ran into Jake) and the woman Elle—decide to wait till morning then track the escapee. Jake declines to accompany them, as he has recovered more memory and wants to find out if it’s true. Later he meets up with them and, with Dolarhyde, leads the fight against the aliens.

The plot/storyline here is not something you really want to think hard about; if not for the aliens, it could be just about any Western movie starring a couple of hardcases and a pretty young woman. The rationale for the aliens even being there is rather thin—I won’t say too much except that “there’s gold in them thar hills”—and the rationale for the kidnappings is even thinner. If I say too much about the plot I risk giving too much away, so I’ll just say that it holds water—barely—and why would you even expect a plot in a Western starring Harrison Ford, Daniel Craig and aliens? Come on, now—this is just an excuse for a fun mash-up, so just have fun with it! The writer, actors and director certainly did.

For what they’re given to work with, the actors do a creditable job: Craig is stony-faced for much of the movie, as befits a hero/antihero; Ford goes from gruff to nearly likeable; several of the minor actors, notably Adam Beach as an Apache fostered by Dolarhyde, and Walton Goggins as Hunt, do their parts well without too much scenery chewing. Again, considering how fast this movie has to move, it’s nice that the actors are able to bring any depth at all to their characters.

The special effects and action sequences were relatively well done. The aliens are fast, strong and repugnant; although many of them have the wrist blasters that Jake wears, they can kill with just their pointed limbs and can absorb an amazing amount of gunfire without apparent effect. The alien ship is well designed, but again, I can’t say too much without giving away too many plot points; you’ve already seen the little one-alien fliers in the trailers, but you haven’t seen all they’re capable of. There are explosions, gun fights, some pretty brutal fist fights between various humans, and it all chugs along pretty well.

When all is said and done, if you expect something deep from a film titled Cowboys and Aliens, you’re bound to be disappointed. If you go in expecting a superficial action movie set in the Old West, with a couple of major stars and a fair number of minor ones, then you will see what you expected; it’s all in your expectations, after all. Just go in, buy your popcorn or nachos and your cola, and sit back and watch the show. You’ll have fun.

Recommended; score about 7.0 out of 10.

King Canute am I; a blog about holding back the tide…

Grammar Police Badge

Grammar Police Badge

I really wanted to do a rant today, but although I’m stubborn and opinionated, I don’t think I can muster enough enthusiasm today for a rant. The topic today is grammar, spelling and punctuation. And what’s happening with it even in arenas where there used to be standards. I may be a lone voice crying in the wilderness, but I shall persevere….

This is the best Grammar Police badge I have found on Google. (Interesting side note: the site I stole borrowed this image from used the word “it’s” incorrectly. Hmm. Maybe I should rant….)

Yes, I’m talking about what’s happening to English spelling, grammar and punctuation. I have no problem with people who know what they’re doing, and misuse the language purposely* (let me clarify: when I say “English language” here I’m speaking of North American English, the generic kind taught in schools that almost nobody speaks—similar to BBC English in England); I’m speaking of English transmogrified by ignorance or apathy or a combination of the two plus lack of thought. I’m not talking about “Engrish” or its many variations (although attempts by foreign writers to write correctly in a language they obviously don’t know can be funny, I always wonder how well I would do writing in Chinese, for example, before I condemn them).
*Picasso could paint cubistically because he knew the rules, and knew what rules he was breaking. I give writers the same latitude in my mind.

I take my cue from Lerner and Loew’s Henry Higgins in My Fair Lady (who differs a bit from the Shavian professor), when he says, “Why can’t the English teach their children how to speak? Norwegians learn Norwegian; the Greeks are taught their Greek…”; he goes on to say, “In America, they haven’t spoken it for years!” (Although we will concentrate here more on written than spoken English.)

Let me just list some of my least-favourite errors as they occur to me; that is, in no particular order:

It’s. Usually incorrectly used as “belonging to it,” as in “The dog was wagging it’s tail.” Folks, this word ALWAYS means “it is” or “it has.” Period.

Your and You’re. The first one means “belonging to you.” The second one means “You are.” No exceptions. “Your right” instead of “You’re right” means you’re wrong.

Their and They’re. Same as above, substituting them for you. I’m seeing this on the interweb a lot lately.

To and Too. (These words are usually accompanied by two, but I figure if you use “two” in place of the other “too” your “to” stupid “two” live.) Obviously, the previous sentence should be “two,” “two,” “you’re,” “too” and “to.” To means “toward,” basically. Too means “also,” or “as well,” or “in addition,” or “overly”… look it up! Two is a cardinal number following “One.”

Than and Then. The first is a conjunction, usually used in a comparison. “I’m bigger than you.” The second one means “at that time”; i.e., “I was younger then.” Again, I’m seeing a substitution of “then” for “than” in internet usage a lot. “I’m bigger then you.” Wrong!

Everyday vs. Every day—this is becoming more common every day. “Everyday” is an adjective, folks. “I wore my everyday clothes.” “Every day” means every single day in a sequence of days. I see lots of ads saying “Low prices everyday”—which is wrong. Try “Low everyday prices” instead.

Lie and lay—this should be so simple even a child can do it, but most people get it wrong. Listen, “lay” is a transitive verb, and requires an explicit object! If you use lay, it must have a stated object. Songs that got it wrong: (1) Bob Dylan’s Lay, Lady, Lay is wrong. “Lay across my big brass bed” has no stated object. Had he said “Lay yourself across…” he would have been right. (2) Melanie’s Lay Down (Candles in the Rain) is partly right: “Lay down, lay down…” is wrong, and “lay it all down” is right! (You must have a stated object, not an understood or implicit one, between “lay” and “down” to be right.) Tell your dog to “lay down” and you’re wrong; tell him to “lie down” and you’re right! Simple, yes?

Alright or all right? As far as I know, “alright” is not a real word. It’s not all right to use it.

Less or fewer? Simple. “Less” is for amounts; things than can be measured but not counted, also for liquid measures. (And very, very occasionally because it sounds better.) For things than can be counted, use “fewer”!

Amount or number? See above. You never have an amount of people, for example. If you cannot count, use amount (again, also for liquid measure).

Sink or sunk? We all know the Milton-Bradly slogan: “You sunk my battleship!” Is it right or wrong? This one is wrong, wrong, wrong. We used to be taught 3 tenses in school (I’m talking grade school, not high school or university here): sink (present tense), sank (past tense) and sunk (past perfect tense). “I’m gonna sink your battleship because you sank my battleship. Yes, my battleship was sunk!” That’s how to use them. This also works for “drink” but not for “think” unless you’re making a joke. “I thunk it was Joe.”

Different from or different than or different to? Well, most people aren’t taught this one. Brits use “different to”—which is fine for them—but we should be using “different from” rather than “different than” (unless we’re saying “differently than”). It is acceptable to use “different than what,” but “different than” without the “what” is wrong, though you hear it all the time.

Yeah or yay vs. ya, yah, yea or variations thereof. I guess I’m wondering how do people graduate from high school without learning the most common three- or four-letter words. “Ya” or “yah” (or “yeh”) are often used in pulp dialogue, but have no real English standing. “Yea” is really old school: “Yea, though I walk through the valley…” and does, in fact, mean “yes”—but who are all these prophets using it on the internet? For “yes,” you should really say “yes,” or “yeah,” or even (if you’re German or Scandihoovian) “Ja”—but not “ya” or “yah,” for Yahweh’s sake!

Punctuation is pretty simple for most usage. Since most internet users only write what, 140 characters, or on Facebook, a few sentences; most of those aren’t even run-on. For those of you who grew up in the modern age (i.e., untaught in school or at home), a run-on sentence can be characterized as two separate stand-alone sentences joined by a comma. “I went to the woods with my dog, we had a good time.” Those are separate sentences and can stand alone (but would sound a bit choppy if written so); therefore, you use a semicolon. They are related enough in content that the second sentence can stand as a dependent clause like so: “I went to the woods with my dog; we had a good time.” (To simplify even further, you could use “and” instead of the comma or semicolon, but it sounds rather childlike to these ears: “I went to the woods with my dog and we had a good time.”) Simply put, if the part after the comma makes a complete sentence, you’ve usually got a run-on sentence. Try one of the remedies listed.

Quotation marks seem to baffle most people. I include commas and periods used with quotations marks (which I’ll call “quotes,” for convenience, from here on in) in that bafflement. Look, folks, we’re in North America. Check either your Chicago Manual of Style, your Strunk & White or, if you’re Canadian, try the CP Manual of Style. We Norteamericanos do it differently than do Brits, as far as the quote marks themselves. Here, we use double quotes almost exclusively; there, it’s the reverse—though they call them “inverted commas.” General rule of thumb: single quotes go inside double quotes. If there are no quotes within quotes, use double quotes. Newspapers generally opt for saving space and use single quotes in headlines, though really, how much space are they saving? And why do we use quotes? We use them when we’re citing someone else’s exact words, whether in speech or in writing. We can also use them to indicate that a word or phrase is not being used in strict dictionary definition, or to suggest something wonky about a word or phrase.

Quotes with other punctuation… Americans generally do it differently than do the British as well. Canadians waffle a lot, though the CP Manual of Style (I’m depending on memory here, as I can’t reach my copy right now; my office is currently torn up as a result of plumbing repair in the adjacent bathroom) says, that most punctuation goes inside the quotes. Question marks and exclamation points go inside the quote if they’re part of the quote; outside elsewise. In spelling, btw, Canadians emulate Brits in using “our” instead of “or” and “s” in most words containing “z.” But often they don’t understand that Americans deliberately changed their spelling in response to breaking away from being British. Americans wanted to be distinct and different.

An ellipsis is three dots. No more, no fewer. You can have an ellipsis followed by a period, which means the sentence is over. Supposedly, an ellipsis is only used to indicate omitted text; I use it a lot to suggest ambiguity, which is not supported by most English professors. So sue me already. Call me Ishmael Picasso.

Subject/object agreement is becoming harder for people to keep straight in their minds while composing sentences, apparently. I see sentences like “A boat full of passengers were sunk” in the newspapers. The subject is “boat,” not “passengers”! The “of” in this sentence makes the passengers part of a dependent clause. It’s becoming increasingly hard for people to figure this out. I don’t know why.

Misc. errors: I’ve seen people using multiple exclamation marks to try to add extra emphasis. Also underline and bold—in what should be typesetting! Ditto multiple question marks. Underlining is used in typewriting. Pretty much alone, folks. It’s not used in typesetting, which includes making posters on a computer using proportional type. Underlining came about because typewriters couldn’t do italics. Please use italics, bold or both to add emphasis. And let me say this: extra question marks or exclamation points are just plain wrong!(!!!) (Several prime examples are on the bulletin boards in my doctor’s office: there are multiple posters made up by the nurses with bold, italic and underlined passages followed by multiple exclamation marks. And nearly every line in the whole poster has these emphases—then they follow these errors by manually highlighting many of the emphases! When every line is emphasized, it means no line is more important than any other, even with extra exclamation points. Please don’t try these at home, folks.

I have seen it written by some so-called “experts” that language is fluid and evolving, and therefore there are no rules. Don’t believe this horsepucky, folks. Try turning in an essay in school full of common English errors and see what grade you get. Try putting in a resumé full of the same and I can pretty much guarantee you won’t get that job. People judge you all the time; why give them another opportunity to misjudge you? Excuses don’t work, in my opinion. I’ve heard ’em all: “I’ve got dyslexia”; “My spell-checker doesn’t work”; “It’s too much trouble and nobody cares”; “The copyeditor was supposed to fix that”; “I don’t have time to check my typing on the internet” and so on. Look, I’ve given some basics in under 2000 words here. How hard can it be? How much time can it take?

I really and truly don’t understand people who don’t even try to do something correctly. As they say, “You only get one chance to make a first impression” and “If you have time to redo it, you had time to do it right.” Hey, looks like I got up enough enthusiasm to do a rant anyway! Let me know what you think (but be aware you probably won’t change my mind if you want to argue. On the other hand, give me enough evidence and I can often be convinced to change my mind).

Review: Ironwolfe, by Darragh Metzger, (Book One of The Triads of Tir na n’Og)

”” In the fifteenth century, the Hungarian king Mathias Corvinus, also known as Hunyadi, had a number of voivodes, or provincial governors (the term could also mean “count,” or “baron”; as Corvinus’s voivode Vlad Tepes became known — fictionally, at least — as Count Dracula) serving under him. According to this book, one of the most notorious, Janos Narodniho, was known as Ironwolfe, who led the “infamous Black Army” during Corvinus’ war against the Ottoman Empire. After Corvinus’ death, the remnants of the Black Army were harried into the Carpathian Mountains and there passed into the mists of history.

Although he crossed into the mountains with more than a hundred men (the remnant of a light cavalry force once numbering a thousand), Janos loses so many that when he and his men become lost in an uncanny thick fog they eventually emerge with fewer than thirty men, who are attacked by a large band of subhuman “Trolkien” who further thin their ranks to about twenty. Where they emerge is a place unknown to them, who had ranged over most of the eastern European continent; they take refuge from the Trolkien for the night at a nearby castle, only to be taken prisoner by the castle’s inhabitants and accused of using black magic. Janos discovers that these people think guns (or “gonnes”) are black magic, and send him off to their masters under guard and possible sentence of death, leaving the survivors of his army working in fealty to the castle’s lord. At this time, Janos finds out that he is no longer on Earth; he is now in the domain known (in Ireland) as Tir na n’Og, which we think of as the land of the fairies.

But here we’re not talking about little flitty things with wings, we’re talking full-fledged “Lords and Ladies,” the owners of the Wild Hunt, they who live Under The Hill and so on. If you have any grounding in old-timey European folklore, you know who I’m talking about. Janos has a hard time believing this until he is sent off under a geas, or magical suggestion, from a Mystic, one of the three components of a human Triad. The Triads are part of the ruling cliques of the human part of this world, and they live and rule by the goodwill of their fairy masters. (The other two parts are the Ranger and the Cavalier, roughly corresponding to the warrior and the scout. Only many times more powerful than their mundane equivalents.)

After all this, things get exciting. Janos becomes part of a movement to restore human self-rule, then part of a secret Triad of his own, serving a seldom-seen faction in the fairy world. This story has a conclusion, which I won’t reveal, but is part of a longer work, a trilogy (surprise!), of which only the second book has been published at this time. The book also includes an excerpt from another book: the first two chapters of “Heart of a Cavalier,” from “Tales from Opa.” Overall, the story of Janos “Ironwolfe” Narodniho comprises about 600 pages. And that’s just the first book!

So what do I think of this book? I really liked it; in my opinion it provides full value for the money, which is, I believe, $20. (And much better value than many of today’s fantasy books selling for a lot less!) Metzger is a very good storyteller, who keeps you hooked into the action and really wanting to know what comes next.

The character of Janos Narodniho is pretty well developed; as the story progresses you learn what motivates him besides loyalty to his ruler and to his men; you find out a fair amount about his past and development. (There is a frame to Ironwolfe’s story involving the storyteller known as “Opa” and a would-be thief, but that is not germane to the larger story at this point, although it may be later in the series.) Metzger is an accomplished rider and part of the performance group known as The Seattle Knights, so she knows more than a little about arms, armour and mounted battles, and she is able to make these things come alive in her writing. In her book the fighters do get tired and injured, hungry and thirsty, suffer fear, rage and the usual set of human emotions; she also gives pretty good “place” — we get a good sense of what the land of Tir na n’Og is like, physically. Metzger also brings in enough of the senses — taste, smell, etc. — to give her books a certain grittiness that serves the story well.

To be fair, the book isn’t without flaws, but they are all minor ones. (For example, the character’s name is not usually pronounced “Yah-nos” as given in the book; I’ve known more than a couple of Hungarians, Poles and the like, and it’s usually pronounced “Yah-nosh”…) She has the occasional issue with homonyms: she uses “sear” where she means “sere,” for example. Until I looked it up, I was firmly convinced that her use of “maille” for chainmail was an affectation (and I really don’t like affectation), but I learned that she was absolutely correct, and that the early term was maille, which means, basically, links. So I learned something from this book as well.) And if you really want to know, I couldn’t find any information online about Janos, so I suspect she made him up. But that’s something writers do, isn’t it?

I met Darragh at Norwescon in March of this year; full disclosure: Lynne and I have known her husband, Dameon Willich, for something like 30 years; I received two of her books (and I’ll be reviewing the second one here as well, very soon) in exchange for one of mine. I consider this to be very fair value for value given. In case you are wondering, I’m not giving this a good review because Dameon is a friend; I try to be as fair and impartial as possible in my reviews — and I urge you to buy this (or indeed, any of Darragh’s books) if you need something full of action, excitement and good fantasy to read. ””

Ironwolfe, Copyright © 2007, 2010, by Darragh Metzger, TFA Press, Lynnwood, WA; ISBN-10: 1456347403; ISBN-13: 978-1456347406. The book is available from Amazon or from the publisher.

“Oh, what a night…” a review of S.J. Tucker and Heather Dale (04 June 2011)

Sooj and Heather


Last night at about 8 p.m., I went to Rev’s Health Club Lounge, a lounge on Lougheed Highway right by the Holdom Street Skytrain Station, to hear a concert/gig by S.J. Tucker (known as “Sooj” to her friends and fans) and Heather Dale, who I might have spoken of before. (Coincidentally, Rev’s is attached to a bowling alley where Ray Saarinen and I used to play pool when we both lived in and around Coquitlam; when it went non-smoking — does that tell you how long ago that was? — Ray got mad and insisted we find another place to play.)

I am already a fan of Heather’s singing and music, and had never heard of Sooj before, but I had told Heather in March (at Norwescon) that I would come hear her next time she was in Vancouver, and I felt duty-bound to come; besides, she writes, plays and sings beautifully, so it wouldn’t exactly be a chore — and besides, she is a genuinely sweet person (and cute, too!) whom it’s a pleasure to be around!

My friends Tam Gordy and Shelly Lewis Gordy, whom I’ve known since before I moved to Canada (about 33 or so years) already knew about Sooj, but I assured them they would really like Heather, so we made plans to meet up at the concert — although Rev’s is not exactly a giant venue, holding about a hundred people. They were to be accompanied by the “Cello Goddess,” Betsy Tinney, and Heather’s husband (and/or partner) Ben Deschamps, plus John, the drummer (Ben told me his last name, but I didn’t catch it — apologies, John, and I will tell everyone when I learn your last name). So, even though last night was Game 2 of the Stanley Cup finals, I left just at the end of the third period (with a tie, they were headed into overtime) in order to drive to Rev’s. Lynne, who has become a rabid Canucks fan, asked me to say “Hi!” and apologize to Heather for not being there (which I did). I like Heather and Ben enough that I was happy to forgo the overtime which, given how the first 3 periods went, would likely go to second overtime.

Silly me (and Lynne)! At almost the exact time I pulled into Rev’s parking lot, Alex Burrows scored the winning goal, giving the Canucks a 2-0 lead (best of 7 games, in case you don’t follow hockey) and putting them halfway to their goal of their first-ever Stanley Cup. As I got out of the car, I could hear loud cheers erupting from all the highrises around the Holdom Street Skytrain station.

Inside, all was pandemonium… both due to the Canucks’ win and due to the large number of large people milling around. (Apparently, quite a few of the local fans are also SF/Fantasy fans; and a goodly portion of F&SF fans are almost as overweight as the average American is getting to be. I say that not to diss anyone, because it’s a simple fact — and while I, myself am not actually obese, I do weigh about 30 pounds more than I should. So I empathize somewhat with the average fan who’s a “plus size.”) So in one sense, it looked like an SF convention. And after about 45 minutes to clear out the Canucks fans and move the tables out and set up chairs for the audience, the show got underway.

Betsy and Sooj

Heather and Ben

I apologize for the lack of clarity in these photos; I was quite a way back from the front (sitting with Tam and Shelly) and had to use a high-ISO setting and zoom in.

I already knew what to expect from Heather and her band: sort of medieval-Celtic fusion music with a folky tinge; she writes songs in the Arthurian legend, as well as native Indian legend and historical subjects — for example, she sang one merry little tune she had composed after reading Boccaccio’s Decameron, as well as one she wrote in Rouen, France, to the memory of Jeanne d’Arc (whom we all know as Joan of Arc). Fairly eclectic, though nothing I could call really modern.

Now, I must tell you up front that a lot of this fannish yearning for the past (only the best of the past, mind you), like the Society for Creative Anachronism, as well as the fannish creating/joining of fantasy societies, is right off the hook for me. Part of it goes along with singing — if you’re aware of fannish “filking” which, put very loosely and simply, is putting sf/fantasy-related lyrics to well-known tunes (although it has evolved an awful lot from its awful beginnings, with some very clever original tunes as well as clever lyrics — Leslie Fish is an example of someone who has done some very original stuff), then I have to say that my very first example of filking put me off the whole genre nearly for life.

[Okay, if you must know, at the first convention I ever attended, in 1975 — the 28th annual “Westercon” (which is usually held on the July 4 long weekend), at a hotel in Oakland, California, I met Erwin S. “Filthy Pierre” Strauss, who told me (and my friend Jon Gustafson, who used to travel with me to all conventions) about filking. It sounded like fun, but when we went into the filk room, they were singing “The Green Hills of Earth” (Robert A. Heinlein) to the tune of Gilligan’s Isle. And they were serious! But I digress yet again!]

Back to the concert — who was this S.J. Tucker? Well, her website is called “Skinny White Chick” — which could be extremely fannish, or it could be ironically self-referential; but I didn’t know which it would be. Well, up on stage (you can’t tell from these photos, but she is kinda small) came this lady with a tropical flower in her hair (à la 1940s singers like — oh, I dunno, Billie Holiday or someone!) and a black top that left her midriff bare. Although she was not well miked throughout the night, I caught enough (especially when she freed her voice and just went all out) to tell she was a heck of a good singer with a nice tone and a great range. I just wish I could have caught more of the words, especially with the funny songs, like “Alligator in the House” or “(The Notorious) Salad of Doom”! And not to minimize Betsy’s contributions, either, as she is a very good and very skilled cello player. So I enjoyed Sooj’s set, though I would like to have heard more of the words. She is a skilled drummer and guitar player and, as I mentioned, has a good voice when she lets it out, so it was a good set.

Heather Dale before the concert

Then Heather got up, and did her set with Ben and John, including the aforementioned Decameron song, her song about an Inuit legend named Sedna, who created all the animals in the sea, a song about Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (which I had always thought was by Sir Thomas Malory, but apparently I’m wrong) and several more, including her song about Joan of Arc; then there was a 15-minute break, as it was quite warm in that little room, and getting outside in the cooler night air was a lifesaver — and then all of the musicians played together on each others’ songs.

Heather and Ben are both really good musicians: she plays piano, harp, bodhran, wooden recorder and a kind of pennywhistle that I’m not familiar with; he plays guitar, bass guitar, mandolin and fiddle, at least. Although I had heard all the songs before (the set was nearly identical to her Norwescon set), I enjoyed them all over again. Then the musicians played a couple of encores and I had to go home, as it was after 11 p.m. and I was very tired.

Ben Deschamps and Heather Dale mugging before concert



So was it worth the 20-minute drive each way, the hot, cramped quarters and the $15 admission fee (which Shelly Gordy paid for me; thanks!)? Yes, you bet. Would I do it again? Will I go see Sooj and/or Heather again when they perform near me? Of course! I am a big, big music fan — and I’ve always been fond of those who write and perform their own music live; I have boosted several performers in my time and followed them. So my review is a big 5 out of 5 — and if you like live music, performed by a couple of talented women and their sidemen, I not only recommend you go see them, I urge you to do so!

Heather and Steve, photo by Tam Gordy