Thursday, October 26, 2017

Morning Coffee (10/26/17)

Hi! I'm on vacation, which means a. some of these links were stockpiled ahead of time and may not take breaking news into account, and b. morning posts only for a few days. Back to normal on Wednesday!

This is important: Jamelle Bouie on why we should never get used to Trump's lies.

The Trumpification of John Kelly

SIGH: Majority Of White Americans Say They Believe Whites Face Discrimination

Molly Ringwald's take is really worth reading: All the Other Harvey Weinsteins

This headline is extremely 2017: Man Who Dressed as Pikachu to Jump White House Fence Says He Wanted to Be a YouTube Star

One mystery solved: Yup, That's James Comey's Twitter

Wait. What? Michael Bay Is Producing a Live Action Dora the Explorer Film

Oh no! World wine production 'to hit 50-year low'

This is cool but also kind of funny. HERE HAVE SOME SHIPWRECKS seems like a passive-aggressive gift situation. U.K. Offers Famed Arctic Shipwrecks As 'Exceptional Gift' To Canada

Ancient Icelandic Volcanoes May Have Hastened Ice Age Melting

Weekly Rec: Viceroy's House

(Weekly Rec posts are made possible by my Patreon supporters. Come join and get even more of my thoughts!)

When I first heard about Viceroy's House - a movie about Lord Mountbatten and the Partition of India, starring Hugh Bonneville and Gillian Anderson as the Mountbattens, I was interested (that cast!) but also a bit worried, as this seemed an opportunity for a huge amount of romanticizing colonialism and generally keeping the British experience central. But! Never fear. The movie is actually directed and co-written by Gurinder Chadha (Bend It Like Beckham), and parts of it are based on her own family's experiences during the Partition. This is, as we say, #ownvoices.

Which is not to say that this movie - or anything - is perfect and unproblematic, of course. But Viceroy's House does a really great job of presenting the story from multiple points of view at the same time, as the months leading up to Indian Independence are followed at, uh, the Viceroy's House, with both the Viceroy (and other Brits) and his staff and their families - who are themselves not a monolith and have conflicting views on what should happen to their country. I knew the outlines of this period of history (I want to say "of course," but many of my fellow audience members had NO IDEA India was partitioned), but this movie definitely made me want to learn more about the intricacies of the politics both leading up to and after independence.

The movie does perhaps go a little easy on the Mountbattens, who are portrayed as well-meaning but in over their heads, manipulated by higher-ups in the British government. But it focuses just as much on both the tragedy and promise this episode of history brought to the Indian people, seen through the stories of a young mixed-faith couple (played beautifully by Manish Dayal and Huma Qureshi) and their families. It's both educational and a piece of thoroughly enjoyable entertainment, with solid writing and acting as well as beautiful sets and locations and period costumes.

Viceroy's House is currently playing in a limited number of theaters - if it's near you, it's definitely worth the watch.

You can't have it both ways, pop stars.

I don't assume song lyrics are autobiographical or factually accurate. As with most kinds of writing, they don't need to be, and whether they are doesn't really affect their quality as art. I get annoyed when people assume that every song reflects a specific situation in the singer and/or songwriter's life in documentary detail. I'm fine with rich famous musicians writing and performing from the perspective of "normal" people who worry about jobs and money and whatever else.

But! There's an exception to this! If you are explicitly stating within the lyrics that the song is about you, the rich famous person, you cannot expect us to also believe that you are worrying about money in any normal sort of way.

I am, of course, specifically thinking of current hit "Strip That Down" by Liam Payne, though he is certainly not the only offender. (Here's the video, if you haven't heard it.) I am not a particular fan but, as I said to a friend, I enjoy the song for a certain value of "enjoy"; in this case that more or less means that when it comes on the radio I'm content enough to bop along, but I don't really seek it out and I am making no claims as to its artistic worth. I'm just complaining about the lyrics, because with everything else going on in the world it's refreshing to take a break once in a while and get mad about meaningless pop song lyrics.

This song is coded as autobiographical in the clearest way possible: it literally includes the line "I used to be in 1D." (For those of you who actively avoid hearing anything about pop music: 1D = One Direction, a gigantically famous and successful boy band that is now on indefinite hiatus.) The narrator of the song is clearly Current Famous Millionaire Liam Payne. I suppose if we want to get technical about it, he could be singing this from the perspective of someone else who used to be in 1D, but still: that is five specific people and they are all rich.

So! Since the narrator of the song is, according to the text itself, a rich famous pop star, he has no business making the point in the later lyric "You know I don't need no money / when your love is beside me." ("Beside" seems an odd choice of preposition there, but that is... well. Beside the point.) He doesn't need money because he HAS LOTS OF IT. Her love is irrelevant to this question. I suppose he could be trying to claim that his money doesn't matter to him because of this, but that's easy to say when you don't have to worry about this in the first place.

Oops, my brain just leapt to an argument about how rich people pretending to deeply feel the economic concerns of not-rich people is a lot of what led us to our current mess, but NO. This was something fun and meaningless to get mad about, darn it, so I shall stop here.

Weekly Rec: Gulliver's Gate

Gulliver's Gate is a new-ish exhibition near Times Square that is basically the world in miniature. It's incredible. There's a mind-boggling amount of detail and extremely impressive craftsmanship. It has a huge section devoted to Manhattan, and then smaller sections for all different cities and countries around the world. (And also an airport and some freestanding landmarks.) You can also take a peek into the workshops where they make the various pieces, which seemed cool but I was there on the Sunday of Columbus Day weekend and it was so busy I couldn't really get close and certainly couldn't talk to any of the people working. (AND there's a place to get a 3D printed version of yourself made!)

I'm having trouble even finding the words to describe how incredible and intricate this is. I could have spent hours and still not noticed everything.

To give you a taste, here's part of the New England section:


They also added all sorts of cultural figures to various sections (some of which made more sense than others, honestly). Here are the tiny Beatles!


It's definitely worth the trip, though the amount of stuff going on was almost overwhelming and it was hard to feel like I was really appreciating the workmanship when the exhibit was crowded. Like so many things, I would have enjoyed it more were other people not allowed. Failing that, I'd recommend trying to go during the week (though maybe then there are lots of field trips?) and certainly not on a holiday weekend as I did.

(In)expert Advice: Authors and book covers!

Welcome to our first installment of (In)expert Advice, in which I, an avowed non-expert, tell people what to do anyway - and then have an actual expert weigh in on my advice! This column is made possible by my wonderful Patreon supporters. Got a question for us? E-mail me!

Today we've got a question about the world of publishing, so our guest expert is Kate Testerman, lit agent extraordinaire and founder of KT Literary. Follow Kate on Twitter and check out what the agency's up to on Facebook!

(Note: This question originally came from Twitter, so I've paraphrased for clarity and anonymity.)

THE QUESTION: An author just got the proposed cover art for her new book and she likes it, but there's a detail wildly wrong - let's say the main character's dog is the wrong breed. It bothers her a little but she's not too upset. Should she bring it up to her editor? Will readers be mad about it?

MY INEXPERT ADVICE: Okay, I have a few thoughts here. First of all, the straightforward answer to the first question: Sure, mention it. If they're asking for your feedback, I see no harm in saying "It's really cute, but would it be a big hassle to change the dog to xyz to match the text?" Maybe it would and maybe it wouldn't, but you might as well find out.

But then... I'd try to let it go. In a pragmatic sense, it doesn't seem like you care about it enough to make this a hill you want to die on - and I agree that cover art generally shouldn't be, as long as it's not an issue like whitewashing. I am in no way saying that you should let people walk all over you, but as in any business (or personal, really) situation, you want to pick your battles and not make such a big deal over something non-essential that you risk the people you're dealing with gaining a negative impression of you (earned or not). Save that for the things you care about deeply.

And in a larger sense: I think the sooner you can practice letting go of tangential things readers might complain about, the better. Most readers will not care about the cover, or at worst will notice the dog breed is off but not be so rude as to yell at you about it. But there exists a small minority of readers who will always find things to which they object, some of which are mostly or entirely out of your control - the cover, the font, the price, the shipping time. (That might actually be easier to deal with than those who yell at you about things like your plot or characters. That will happen too! People are terrible.)

Interacting with readers is great, but in order to keep that up in a healthy manner as your career progresses, it's useful to create a bit of emotional distance. You don't owe anyone anything beyond what is in the book. If someone asks politely about the cover, you can tell them that authors aren't in charge of covers. Maybe they don't know! If someone is rude about it, you can ignore them. The fact that a person has purchased or read your book does not override your right to basic civility.

But really: Most readers are great and supportive. The rest will find something to be mad about no matter what. It's not your problem. Try not to take it personally. Good luck!

THE EXPERT WEIGHS IN: Kate's response is on the nose, though I will note that there's a couple of other variables that may affect whether or not your editor can do anything about it when you bring up your concerns. First of all, what type of cover is it? If it's an original piece of artwork commissioned for the cover, depending on what stage you see it in, you likely will be able to let the artist know that the dog is the wrong breed, and maybe even send along some reference images to help the artist correct the cover drawing. If the cover was shot for the book, you might have several images to choose from, but you're likely to be constricted by who and what was in the studio when the photos were taken. You can ask perhaps for some Photoshop, but if the publisher has already committed to a photo shoot, they may not want too much digital manipulation. Many covers, however, are some version of stock photos, and in that case, I would suggest doing some googling of your own on various stock image sites to provide further reference photos.

But really, if you can -- let it go. Most readers will understand that the author's responsibility begins and ends with the words on the page, and the cover and the rest of it is the publisher's responsibility.

Good luck!

THE VERDICT: Hey, my answer wasn't terrible! Yay! Thanks again for joining us, Kate!

Have a question for (In)expert Advice? Send it along!

Weekly Rec: Overcast

Weekly Recs are made possible by my Patreon supporters! Come join us for exclusive content and more.

Several years ago I used to listen to lots of podcasts, and then I just kinda... stopped? For some reason? I'm honestly not sure at this point, but that's neither here nor there. I periodically tried to start up again but was extremely frustrated by the iPhone Podcasts app - it kept deciding to no longer download things because I hadn't listened in a while, or downloading hundreds of things for no apparent reason, and I just gave up.

But then! A few weeks ago it struck me that there exist other podcast apps so maybe I should try them instead. I did a very scientific survey of people I know on Facebook and Twitter and decided to try Overcast. I planned to try others if necessary and pick the best, but I'm happy with Overcast so far so I haven't even bothered to do that. One funny thing: when I started asking for recommendations people immediately started talking about sound quality, which is so low on my list of podcast app priorities that it hadn't even occurred to me as a criterion.

Guys. It's me. All I care about is how I can organize and manipulate the data.

And Overcast pretty much lets me do most of what I want! The interface is simple and functional, search works well, and it's easy to subscribe (or go to a specific episode) via URL if you have that. I can tell what I've heard and easily switch between ordering by newest or oldest depending on whether I'm listening to a show methodically from the beginning or dipping in and out of newer episodes. I haven't done a ton with the playlist functionality yet but it seems pretty user-friendly too. The app downloads what I want it to download, which doesn't sound like a rare feature but apparently is. (There's one feature I want it to have that apparently NO podcast app has so I GUESS I will let it go. [It's showing a list of only unplayed episodes, downloaded or not. Why does no one have this??])

Confession: I also really like the name, because obviously I hate sunshine and happiness.

(Yes, this also means you can recommend podcasts in the comments if you want, since I'm FINALLY paying attention to such things.)

Morning Coffee (10/13/17)

Whew, we definitely need some happy Friday links this week.

Aaaah, Rainbow Rowell book news! I'm so glad she's writing a book taking place in a pumpkin patch. That is the MOST RAINBOW.

And the cover and an excerpt from Sandhya Menon's upcoming From Twinkle, With Love!

And the Toast came back very briefly to tell us Hey Ladies! wrote a book too!

I will continue to be unreservedly excited about new X-Files because we need things to be happy about. Anyway, here's the trailer.

This new podcast sounds cool! British Museum and BBC team up to explore belief through objects

Hey, sometimes bears need pizza too.

11 Shearling Coats to Snuggle Up in This Fall (I am glad shearling is in this year because I am OBSESSED right now.)

Ooh, let's run away to Lego House.

31 Amazing Literary Halloween Costumes

I get annoyed at leaf-peepers in person but I don't mind if you do it VIRTUALLY: Breathtaking Fall Leaves Around the World

Who wants some (in)expert advice?

The other day, a Twitter pal asked for advice on something going on in her professional life, and I told her that I wasn't an expert in her area but then proceeded to tell her what to do anyway, because there is nothing I love so much as telling people what to do. She seemed to like my advice, so I joked that I should start an Inexpert Advice column on the blog and people seemed to like the idea, so... hey, let's try it.

But since I'm not an expert, I'm adding a bit of a twist to this - in each (In)expert Advice post, I'll answer a question but then call in an expert (or the closest I can find) to judge whether my advice was correct. If questions are about a certain field (publishing, medicine, law, etc.) I'll try to get a bona fide professional. If they're more general family/romantic/interpersonal things, I'll ask a smart friend who has dealt with something similar or who generally gives good advice in that area.

This will start in a week or two - I'm at work on the first question (and need to rope in an expert). It'll probably appear about once a month, depending on how many questions I get. Have something going on in your life about which you'd like some potentially questionable advice? Send it my way!

Let's not pretend a female author could get away with this.

I love the Times' Carry-On column, in which they talk to some prominent person about what they pack for (usually frequent) travel. And Stephen King came across as pretty delightful in his; nothing I'm saying here is a criticism of him and I just wanted to make that clear up front.

But. But! In this he talks about how he just wears jeans and t-shirts on book tour, and doesn't pack any toiletries, just uses whatever his hotel provides. (Or motel. Apparently he prefers the Motel 6, which I guess is the sort of charming low-brow taste it's cool to have when you have enough money to stay wherever you want. I will promise you right now that no matter how much money I ever make, I will never ever prefer the Motel 6 over a nice hotel. BUT I DIGRESS.) But seriously, that's all fine! I'm glad he has a system that works for him. I wish Stephen King no ill.

What is less fine is the reaction to this I saw around the Internet, a chorus of "Oh, he's so normal and down-to-earth and only cares about his WORK, not like all those shallow lady authors who care about their APPEARANCE!" (I'm exaggerating, but only very slightly.) And I would like to tell you that this is sexist nonsense. Do you think there aren't a whole lot of female authors who would love to not worry about how they look on book tour? Of course they are. But they're not granted that luxury.*

I know a fair number of authors and have heard stories from and about many more. And I'm, you know, on Twitter, where we all get a firsthand look at how people respond to women who are public figures in any way. You can see on social media how any time a woman speaks out - especially the most successful; say J.K. Rowling - people rush in to call her ugly and criticize her appearance and evaluate her sexual attractiveness in all sorts of gross ways. If she decided to only ever appear in t-shirts and use generic motel shampoo, I promise the result would not be that people would stop talking about her appearance. It would only become more of a distraction.

And it's not just social media, where we have all (for good or ill) learned to expect people to be terrible. Before they do book signings or appear on panels, the authors I know all think carefully about what they're going to wear; a lot of them get their hair done or their nails done or plan out their makeup. They have to cart around hair and skin products with them on book tour. Exactly zero of them do this because they are shallow and care more about their looks than their work. Some of them genuinely enjoy and are interested in fashion and makeup and that's great! But some, many, of them do this primarily because it is what is expected of a woman who dares to speak in public.

These issues don't just randomly start with events after an author has been published, of course. As in pretty much every industry in our historically patriarchal, sexist society, this is baked in to the publishing industry. Publishers know that it's easier to sell books by young, conventionally attractive (white) authors, and this affects who gets book deals in the first place, who gets marketing budgets, who gets sent on tour.

So: I'm glad Stephen King can wear his jeans. I wish more people could wear what makes them comfortable without worrying about external standards. But let's not take this as a sign of King's virtue, the purity of his dedication to his work. He's a white man who makes a lot of people a lot of money, so he is given this freedom.

* And I'll say - even among male authors, obviously Stephen King can get away with a lot more than someone less wildly successful or someone new trying to make a good impression. But in general, this is all harder for women and their appearance is more heavily scrutinized.

Weekly Rec: Dan Snow's History Hit

I listened to podcasts a lot several years ago, and then I just sort of stopped for a variety of reasons, and I've only gotten back into it in the past few weeks. (Part of that was finding an app I liked better than the iPhone Podcast app - that might be my Weekly Rec NEXT week.) I don't tend to like a lot of the history podcasts people recommend - I'd rather read a book by a historian than listen to some guy talk about whatever period of history. I just don't absorb facts well that way, and I like to know and vet sources.

But! I do like history podcasts that are more along the lines of a historian talking to other historians about their work and areas of expertise, and Dan Snow's History Hit is a great example of that. He's the son of TV presenter/historian Peter Snow, with whom he did the show Battlefield Britain, which BY THE WAY I also recommend. Dan's own work centers mostly around military history, but he covers a wide range of topics on the podcast, and it's always interesting, even if I think I'm not particularly into a certain subject going in. He's expanded the network to have a few other podcasts, now, too, which I have to check out.

You can see the podcasts and all the rest of Dan Snow's work at the History Hit site - there's now video, too, and a few articles, and promises of a "full site" to come. (Snow's Instagram and Twitter accounts are also fun, especially when he's on research trips.)

Weekly Rec posts are made possible by my Patreon patrons. Join now and help us get to the next goal - guest posts and interviews!