Review Delay
For those of you waiting for my review of Vera Nazarian’s COBWEB FOREST, I’m sorry to say that it’ll be another week before I’m able to review it.
Why?
Mostly, I ran out of time . . . partly, it’s because other things have gotten in the way of reviewing and blogging over the past week or so. (As you might’ve noticed from how little I’ve blogged lately.)
I’m hoping to blog tomorrow about a few new books I’ve enjoyed, including my friend Chris Nuttall’s new SCHOOLED IN MAGIC and perhaps discussing in a little more detail Rosemary Edghill’s new short-story collection FAILURE OF MOONLIGHT . . . maybe I’ll throw in a bit of talk about Katharine Eliska Kimbriel’s KINDRED RITES in the bargain.
But that’ll have to wait until the morrow . . . until then, keep on keepin’ on. (And for my fellow baseball fans, enjoy Spring Training — the most optimistic time of the year.)
Lightspeed Magazine Passes on My Story…
Folks, Lightspeed’s “Women Destroy SF” issue has passed on my story, which I still won’t name as I’ve immediately sent it off to another market (as writers must do).
Let us hope the second market will be more interested than the last, hey?
Two New Reviews Up at SBR Over the Weekend
Folks, I had a busy weekend with regards to reviews, which is one reason I wasn’t able to write an after-action report right away with regards to Friday’s review of Sharon Lee and Steve Miller’s newest novel in their ongoing Liaden Universe, TRADE SECRET.
You see, my latest review, up as of a few, short minutes ago, is for Vera Nazarian’s haunting and compelling COBWEB EMPIRE, the second in her Cobweb Bride series. Her series is dark fantasy, yet there’s somehow an underpinning of optimism that carries you through nearly unimaginable suffering . . . in Ms. Nazarian’s conception, Death needs a bride and has refused to go on taking souls until he gets one. But he can’t have just any bride . . . oh, no. He needs a specific bride he calls the “Cobweb Bride” (hence the name of the first book of the series, COBWEB BRIDE, and the series itself, natch), and nothing else will do.
This universe is unlike anything I have ever seen. It is rich, dark, menacing, yet there are plenty of good people who populate it, including the couple at the heart of all the chaos, Persephone “Percy” Ayren and her own dark knight, Duke Beltain Chidair. (Note that Beltain hasn’t yet accustomed himself to being the Duke as his father is undead and certainly doesn’t wish to give up the title, being as distressing a personage as can be imagined . . . at least until an even worse one, Sovereign Rumalar Avalais of the Domain, shows up.)
I have enjoyed reading Ms. Nazarian’s conception thus far, and can’t wait to dive into COBWEB FOREST . . . which is why I plan to read and review it this week. (I’ve already skimmed it, but there’s many, many more things to discover by reading it multiple times.)
At any rate, I also enjoyed Sharon Lee and Steve Miller’s TRADE SECRET quite a bit. It’s told in an unusual way that I likened to a mosaic, as nothing really fell into focus for me until right before the end — then I understood it completely.
Why a mosaic? Well, with a lot of mosaics, you can’t really tell what’s going on until you can stand outside and ponder them. And as that was definitely the case here, it seemed to fit.
So there you have it: Two new reviews are up at Shiny Book Review for two interesting and thoughtful books that both delighted me enormously, albeit in radically different ways.
Hope you’ll enjoy the reviews — then, if they intrigue you anywhere near as much as they did me, go buy the books. (Hours of reading enjoyment await. And the re-reads . . . did I mention the re-reads yet?)
Reviewed “Failure of Moonlight,” “Ideality” at SBR on Thursday
Folks, sometimes I don’t get a chance after reviewing a book to come over here and write a quick blog about it in a timely manner.
I’m not sure why this is, except that the pace of my life seems to be accelerating the longer I’m on this planet. (Weird thing to say, I know. But it’s four a.m., so maybe that accounts for it.)
At any rate, I’m pleased to report that I reviewed two works by Rosemary Edghill at Shiny Book Review (SBR for short, as always) on Thursday afternoon, these being IDEALITY: VENGEANCE OF MASKS and the short-story collection FAILURE OF MOONLIGHT, which features Ms. Edghill’s popular Bast character (a Wiccan detective who takes no nonsense from anyone, not even herself).
Because IDEALITY is a new name for an older title, I mostly just wrote a quick few lines about it and pointed people at the earlier review. I spent most of my time on the six stories and essays comprising FAILURE OF MOONLIGHT.
At any rate, if you are in the mood for some interesting, intelligent stories that will keep your attention long after you’ve turned the final page, please take a gander at these two works. IDEALITY is a fantasy/horror hybrid that’s original, complex, and sometimes shocking — that’s one of the reasons I liked it so much — while FAILURE OF MOONLIGHT is set in our present-day world (albeit slightly in the past, now, as the stories range from the early 1970s to probably the mid-1990s) and features murder mysteries (and Bast; have I mentioned Bast yet?)
Note that IDEALITY is more of an adult read (mind you, if anyone had told me that a book is more of an adult read when I was thirteen or fourteen, that’s the first book I’d have grabbed off the shelf, so it feels really strange to say that), while there’s a mix of age-ranges in FAILURE OF MOONLIGHT.
So please do take a gander at my review, then go read the books.
Breaking News: Arizona Gov. Brewer Vetoes SB 1062
Folks, it’s official — as of 6:50 PM CST, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R) has vetoed Arizona state Senate Bill 1062. MSNBC showed a press conference, where Gov. Brewer said many different things about how she listened to both sides, conferred with advisors, and came to the only decision that made sense.
Thus her veto.
This is a very good thing, both for Arizona and for the nation. As I said earlier, this was terrible legislation. It was impractical at best, too broadly worded (as Gov. Brewer herself said), and unConstitutional on its face.
Good for Gov. Brewer for vetoing this bill.
Arizona’s “Religious Freedom” Bill (aka SB 1062): Bad, Bad Bill that Needs to be Vetoed, Stat
What is wrong with the Arizona legislature?
Last week, on a mostly party-line vote, the Arizona legislature passed controversial state Senate Bill 1062, titled the “Religious Freedom of Expression” bill in much of the media. This bill seeks to amend the Arizona state statutes in order to allow people to deny services to people who don’t meet their own religious standards, as best I can discern, and is widely seen as an anti-LGBT measure.
As you might expect, many people — in and out of Arizona — are calling upon Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R) to veto SB 1062, including both of its United States Senators — Republican John McCain, and Republican Jeff Flake. In addition, three Republican members of the state Senate who just voted for the bill last week are also calling for it to be vetoed. And their reasoning is somewhat surprising.
From the story at the Los Angeles Times:
“While our sincere intent in voting for this bill was to create a shield for all citizens’ religious liberties, the bill has instead been mischaracterized by its opponents as a sword for religious intolerance,” State Sens. Bob Worsley, Adam Driggs and Steve Pierce wrote in a letter. “These allegations are causing our state immeasurable harm.”
In other words, they are saying the perception of the bill is harming the state much more than they thought, so the bill should be vetoed even though they still believe it’s a good bill.
(Hard to believe they didn’t understand just last week that they were making a mistake, but better late than never.)
The problem I see with SB 1062 goes far beyond it conceivably being an anti-LGBT measure. While that’s more than bad enough, after reading this bill in its entirety, I see it as having a much more fundamental flaw:
It is against the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Plain and simple.
Why?
Well, the First Amendment is pretty straightforward. It says that you cannot establish a state religion, but you cannot deny someone the ability to express his or her own religious faith, either. And it also says you cannot deny freedom of expression (among several other things) . . . all of which seem in direct contradiction to Arizona’s SB 1062.
You see, if you allow a bill like this to stand as read, it conceivably allows someone to deny someone service based upon your religious faith or your own, personal beliefs. It makes your own discrimination allowable under Arizona’s state constitution, and further it shields you from harm if someone then sues you because you contravened their rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution of freedom of expression or freedom of religion.
None of that is acceptable.
Furthermore, there are additional, practical reasons as to why SB 1062 should be vetoed without delay by Gov. Brewer, including these stated by the website Arizona Central:
The CEOs of the state’s top business groups – Greater Phoenix Economic Council, Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce, Greater Phoenix Leadership and the Southern Arizona Leadership Council – want Brewer to veto.
“The legislation is also already clearly having a negative effect on our tourism industry, one of the largest sectors of the economy,” several of the CEOs wrote. “The bill could also harm job creation efforts and our ability to attract and retain talent.”
From reading this, it seems these CEOs see SB 1062 as being a job-killer.
But wait, here’s more. From Arizona Central’s editorial:
The damage will grow the longer this bill survives. Brewer can start the healing with a quick, decisive veto. She can use the opportunity to loudly and clearly tell the world that Arizona is an open, welcoming state that does not countenance discrimination.
The Legislature’s approval of the bill undermined the state’s goal of attracting high-tech industry. Seventy percent of people born after 1980 support same-sex marriage, according to Pew Research. High-tech firms locate in places talented, young people find attractive.
The right to refuse service bill makes Arizona an unattractive butt of late-night comedy and snarky tweets.
While I’m not necessarily moved by the need for any state to specifically attract “young people,” I agree that if you want high-tech industry, you want smart people of all ages. And most smart people just do not see the practical sense in legalized discrimination, regardless of age . . . which is why there are people in all age groups who believe marriage should be a civil right irrespective of whether or not your partner is of the opposite sex or the same sex, providing you are both of sound mind and are both adults.
So to sum up, here’s the two big problems with Arizona’s SB 1062:
- It appears to legalize discrimination against people based on a person’s religious beliefs — a no-no under the U.S. Constitution.
- And it appears to be something that’s highly impractical that actively harms the state of Arizona.
If I were Gov. Brewer, I would veto this bill without any further delay . . . it’s clearly the right thing to do, it will save the state of Arizona from having to defend this terrible bill in court (where it’s likely to be struck down and the state penalized for wasting the federal government’s precious time), and it will stop harming the state’s image in the court of public opinion.
The Governor has until February 28 to either veto this bill or sign it. So keep your eyes on Arizona, to see if she’ll do the right thing . . .
Or not.
Answering Questions — Milwaukee Brewers First Basemen, Figure Skating, and More
Folks, sometimes people ask me questions . . . and when I’m hunting for a blog subject, as now, I decide to answer them. (Lucky you, huh?)
The first question goes something like this: “So, Barb. Why is it that you get so hyped up about figure skating, anyway? You’re not a figure skater, so why do you care?”
Hmph.
Well, I care because I like to see justice done. I got upset back in 2010 during the Vancouver Olympics when Johnny Weir didn’t get the score he deserved as he should’ve won the bronze medal. So I signed petitions, formed groups, wrote to the United States Figure Skating Association (to no avail) . . . all because I felt injustice should not be a part of sport.
Why?
Obviously, I realize that nothing in life is fair. But we should strive to make our pursuits as fair as we possibly can.
And sports, in particular, should be much fairer than most other things. People spend years of their lives in the pursuit of perfection, so when inaccurate or shoddy judging — or worse, potentially corrupt judging as in the case of the 2002 Olympics — ruins the skater’s Olympic experience, that can’t help but make me take notice.
Another question: “But Barb. Seriously, Yuna Kim is a millionaire with a gold medal from the 2010 Vancouver Olympics. She doesn’t need your help, so why is it you’re so upset regarding Adelina Sotnikova’s free skate in Sochi? Will anyone really care in four years anyway?”
I don’t know if anyone will care in four years or not. But the system needs to be overhauled. Ashley Wagner was right when she said the judges should stop being allowed to hide behind their supposed anonymity . . . if the skaters must identify themselves (as they do), the judges also must identify themselves so if they get something wrong, they can be retrained — or at the very least questioned as to what happened that led to whatever wrongness that occurred.
And again, I go back to Johnny Weir’s skate in 2010. I still care about it in 2014, because justice was not served.
So it’s quite likely that in 2018, I will still care about this if justice is again not served.
Onto another topic: “Barb, who do you think the Milwaukee Brewers are going to trot out at first base this year? They didn’t sign Manny Ramirez, so who do they have as possibilities?”
Heh. The Manny Ramirez thing was something I threw in there just to see if people were paying attention, though I honestly think the man can still hit and could learn to play first base if he wanted . . . but as the Brewers didn’t sign him, here are the potential first basemen in camp at this time:
- Hunter Morris (spent last year at AAA, hit .247 with 24 HR and 73 RBI). He is a bit raw, but has power to burn and a good, solid work ethic. He’ll probably start the year again at AAA but might come up later.
- Lyle Overbay (hit .240 with the New York Yankees with 14 HR and 59 RBI in 2013). Overbay still fields well at first, and continues to have some pop. He’s been with the Brewers before, so he knows Milwaukee well. My guess would be that he starts the year with the Brewers, as Overbay also can pinch hit and is a left-handed bat.
- Mark Reynolds (hit .220 with two teams with 21 HR and 67 RBI in 2013). Reynolds strikes out a ton. He is not a good defensive first baseman, to put it mildly. But he does have some power and it’s very likely the Brewers will keep him around to see what he’ll do as some of his HRs are moon shots of the Russell Branyan variety.
- Juan Francisco (His 2013 campaign was split into two parts — he hit .221 with 13 HR and 32 RBI in Milwaukee; before that, he hit .241 with 5 HR and 16 RBI in Atlanta). He is not a good first baseman, though some of that is because he’d never played the position prior to last year. He has astonishing power potential, but strikes out a good deal — nearly as often as Mark Reynolds. It’s likely that the Brewers will keep him around, but they also could trade him if they can find a buyer.
- And finally, there’s always Jonathan Lucroy. Yes, Lucroy’s a catcher, but he played first base several times last year and was competent if not comfortable. Lucroy is a consistent hitter who’s only weakness is grounding into double-plays . . . then again, Carlos Lee used to ground into double-plays all the time and no one complained, so it’s unlikely anyone’s going to say much about Lucroy either.
One final question, this yet again on a different topic entirely: “So, Barb. Why didn’t you review any books last week at Shiny Book Review?”
This one’s easy, folks . . . as I was doing my best to get a major edit out the door for a client, I simply ran out of time.
But I’ll be reviewing at least two books this week, so do stay tuned.
Milwaukee Brewers Find Stray Dog, Incorporate Him Into Team Workouts
Folks, after the sturm und drang of the last week’s figure skating results, I needed some lighter fare.
So what could be better than this blog post from USA Today’s “For the Win,” which has a bunch of pictures of the adorable dog Hank that’s been unofficially adopted by the Milwaukee Brewers?
As FTW says:
The Milwaukee Brewers are down in Arizona right now for spring training, and at one of the first days of their new season they happened upon a stray dog roaming around their practice field. After failing to locate an owner, the team has been taking care of the little guy. They named him Hank after Hank Aaron, and he’s become the unofficial mascot of the team.
Click through to see the pictures, and pay special attention to the one where Yovani Gallardo is walking Hank on a leash. Gallardo looks as relaxed as I’ve ever seen him . . . who knew having a cute little dog around would bolster everyone’s spirits? (Well, besides us dog lovers.)
More Olympic Figure Skating Controversy: Korean Olympic Commitee Sends Protest to IOC
This time, folks, I’m not mistyping — the Korean Olympic Committee has sent an official letter of protest to the International Olympic Committee demanding answers regarding the ladies figure skating event in the 2014 Olympic Games, according to this article from the USA Today filed as of 4 a.m. EST 2/22/2014 (today).
The Koreans are concerned that Yuna Kim was not scored fairly, and want answers as to what happened.
Personally, as I’ve said several times, I believe Carolina Kostner was also underscored (Mao Asada, too), and believe Adelina Sotnikova was wildly overscored.
Regarding the substance of the protest, it’s unclear how much good it can do. The International Skating Union still says they haven’t received the official complaint from the Korea Skating Union I discussed in my last blog post (this also according to the USA Today article), and it appears that will be needed also.
(One would hope that if there was a face-to-face meeting between the bigwigs as Reuters reported — which I discussed in my earlier blog post, someone will let the rest of the ISU know about it one of these years?)
However, the fact that the KSU and the KOC have both complained has to matter somehow . . . so my thought is that the IOC and the ISU will both have to respond and figure this out.
If there really was a bias in favor of Adelina Sotnikova, the IOC and ISU should move to fix this as fast as they possibly can. Because this looks very, very bad and it’s not going anywhere anytime soon.
As this controversy appears to have legs, I promise to stay on top of it as best I can, and will post updates as I receive them. (But for right now, I need to go get some sleep. Seriously.)
Figure Skating Controversy Deepens as S. Korea Asks ISU for Inquiry
Folks, it’s official: South Korea has asked the International Skating Union# for an official inquiry into whether or not the judging at the Sochi Olympics in the ladies figure skating event was fair.
Later on Friday the Korea Skating Union (KSU) issued a statement saying it had met with International Skating Union (ISU) President Ottavio Cinquanta and “officially requested to confirm whether the figure skating ladies single competition was held fairly based on the ISU’s regulations and procedures.”
All I can say is, it’s about time. Because with an official inquiry, it’s possible this nonsensical result will be overturned.**
As I said yesterday, I believe Ms. Sotnikova should’ve been on the podium — but in the bronze position. Both Carolina Kostner (the official bronze medalist) and Yuna Kim outskated her.
(Mind you, I’d also have been perfectly fine with Mao Asada winning a bronze medal, as I believe Ms. Asada was underscored in her long program. But that’s a side issue.)
And I’m far from the only one who’s upset about this highly questionable result, as this online petition calling for an investigation into the judging of the Olympic figure skating event has already garnered nearly 1,900,000 signatures as of this hour (roughly 1:35 a.m. CST) . . . in less than two days.
My final thoughts tonight? Well, it’s simple: Ms. Sotnikova benefited from a home-field advantage and a stack of judges that seem, on their face, to be highly questionable. (Please see this article by the redoubtable Christine Brennan if you don’t believe me.)
She did not deserve gold.
And to my mind, she also did not deserve silver.
———
**Note that the Korea Skating Union needs to file an official protest to get this result overturned. But it’s possible the inquiry might be the first step into that, as I can’t remember enough of what happened during the 2002 figure skating fiasco that resulted in Jamie Salé and David Pelletier of Canada initially being given a silver rather than gold, then later being awarded gold after Canada filed a formal protest, to tell you the exact steps Korea needs to go through to get this injustice rectified.
# An earlier version of this blog said that the Korea Skating Union had gone to the IOC (International Olympic Committee) over this — that’s what happens when you write a blog at 1:35 a.m. in the morning, as that was a complete and utter misstatement on my part. I regret the error and have corrected it for the record . . . mea maxima culpa!
Barb Caffrey's Blog 