So, Jeff Vandermeer has an article up at the Huffington Post on political fiction.
This first article covers:
Jessica Z, by Shawn Klomparen
Little Brother, by Cory Doctorow
The Pisstown Chaos, by David Ohle
Stretto, by L. Timmel Duchamp
Black Clock #9
And then a quick take on Seeds of Change, Use of Weapons, Slaughterhouse Five, and Corrupted Science.
It's worth checking out (the article).
Edit Note: I originally included something in this blog post (which Jeff Vandermeer references in the comments) and I was factually incorrect. I will not normally edit the blog for saying something stupid (I don't think), but I will edit when I say something that is flat out wrong and inaccurate. For anyone who did read the original version of this post, let me correct myself: Jeff did, in fact, disclose his contribution to Black Clock 9.
Joe--I *say* in the piece that I'm in Black Clock 9. If it were a full review, rather than a capsule I wouldn't have included it, for that reason. But the quandry was: this is the most topical thing I have to cover. Do I leave it out because I'm in it? And if I don't leave it out, how do I mention I'm in it in the most graceful way?
ReplyDeleteSo, bust me for mentioning Black Clock 9, but don't act like I didn't mention that I'm in it in the piece. That's dishonest on your part.
JeffV
Jeff: I apologize. I read through the Black Clock section twice before I wrote it, and I honestly did not see it.
ReplyDeleteI've just read it over another three times and I *just* caught the "this correspondent" line.
So, again...I apologize.
A further quibble: I was not dishonest when I said you didn't mention it...I was wrong.
ReplyDeleteI would interpret dishonest to mean that I intentionally ignored the fact that you mentioned when the truth is that I looked for it twice and *still* missed it.