literature fiction

2

Currently reading Persuasion by Jane Austen for @colourmeread‘s February challenge. I initially thought I’d pick up a poetry book since my experience with poetry has been fairly limited so far but then I looked at Jane Austen and couldn’t say no. Saving poetry for another day.

He says when he tries to pray he gets this like image in his mind’s eye of the brainwaves or whatever of his prayers going out and out, with nothing to stop them, going, going, radiating out into like space and outliving him and still going and never hitting Anything out there, much less Something with an ear. Much much less Something with an ear that could possibly give a rat’s ass.
—  From Infinite Jest by David Foster Wallace
10

Wands Sorted in the Shop

Here are all the houses for some of my newest wands. I will be working on more tonight using semi-precious stones such as: Amzonite, amethyst, Carnelian, Citrine, Rose quartz, snowflake obsidian, and Jasper.

In another universe, you don’t cling to me like cobwebs, sticky and unseen. In this life, you’ve never touched me at all.
In another universe, I don’t have to write bad poetry about your mouth because I’ve never kissed it. I don’t know that you taste like bourbon.
In another universe, I can still drink without thinking about your tongue.
In another universe, my hands are never near your hands and my bed is always empty but it still feels full with just me inside of it.
In another universe, I’ve never met you and I don’t wish for you.
Everyone always says, in another life, I will love you better. I will love you longer and shake the stars from the sky.
Well I say,
In another universe, I will never love you at all. This will be my rebirth and my baptism because in this world where your hands don’t exist, I am finally free.
—  and I am better for it. (via @brizzlewritesthings)

Have you really read all those books in your room?”

Alaska laughing- “Oh God no. I’ve maybe read a third of ‘em. But I’m going to read them all. I call it my Life’s Library. Every summer since I was little, I’ve gone to garage sales and bought all the books that looked interesting. So I always have something to read.

—  John Green, Looking for Alaska
No one should ever be deprived of books. Of stories. Of…magic. No one.
—  J. M. Frey, The Forgotten Tale
6

New Wands in the Shop & Major Changes

This is not the same sort of update as I normally do. Just letting all of you know there are going to be some HUGE changes to my shop. I got a notice from Warner Brothers last night that I cannot use anything with ‘Harry Potter’ or content of the book in my work. It was a little discouraging, but I mulled it over and will continue to make wands and just list them a little differently. In a way, this works out better so people can choose a wand specific to their personality rather than anything pre-sorted and I can expand on things more inspired by other books like Lord of the Rings and Magician: Apprentice. I am having to redo all my listings to reflect these changes, but do not worry! I will still continue to do custom orders to your specifications and will have everything re-listed this week.

I’m a big fan of “hard” science fiction, but I’m increasingly of the opinion that, in practice, it’s really more of an aesthetic, not a taxonomic category.

In principle, hard science fiction is science fiction that focuses on technical accuracy and scientific rigour; while speculative technologies and developments may be present, ideally these speculative elements should be consistent with what’s theoretically possible, even if they don’t currently exist.

In practice, trying to treat hard science fiction as a coherent category of literature runs into four main problems:

1. The scientific consensus is constantly evolving, which makes it difficult to get a handle on what we mean by “theoretically possible”.

Suppose that a work’s premise is believed to be possible today, but is proven to be impossible tomorrow. Does that work stop being hard sci-fi? Does it continue to be hard sci-fi on the basis that its premise was believed to be possible at the time it was written? Or does this mean it was never hard sci-fi in the first place, and both its author and its audience were mistaken about its status all along?

Conversely, what if a story’s premise was believed to be impossible at the time it was written, but is later demonstrated to be possible after all?

Every possible approach to resolving these questions has serious issues. If we allow a work’s “hardness” to be judged based on the scientific consensus at the time it was written, for example, then we’re really basing our assessment on the author’s level of ignorance rather than the work’s level of rigour.

On the other hand, if we judge a work’s “hardness” based on the present concensus, then we can never really know whether the work in question is hard sci-fi or not - the possibility that its premise will be refuted tomorrow can never be entirely ruled out.

2. A great deal of science fiction ventures into territories where we simply don’t know enough to say one way or the other whether a given premise lies within the realm of possibility. How do these works interact with the hard/soft binary?

Are they hard by default? If so, then hard sci-fi takes refuge in ignorance - a curious position for a genre that’s ostensibly defined by rigorous thought.

Are they soft by default? If so, then hard sci-fi would seem to be restricted to those works that don’t engage in any substantive speculation - which is a problem for a genre that’s ostensibly defined by its speculative nature.

Or do we simply reserve judgement? If so, then the hard/soft binary is inapplicable to the vast majority of sci-fi literature.

3. It’s not at all clear that scientific rigour and consistency with the current scientific consensus are related in any essential way.

Suppose that a work takes place in a world where the laws of physics permit slightly different things than they do in our world, and carefully reasons through what those differences would imply in terms of technology and society.

Is this work hard sci-fi? And if it is, what’s to stop, say, a fantasy novel with an especially well-thought-out magic system from claiming the same distinction?

4. In practice, the canon of hard sci-fi tends to be very selective about the particular branches of science in which rigour is necessary.

Many acclaimed works of hard sci-fi are exceedingly careful about their physics, for example, but their sociology is so far out of whack, they may as well be taking place in Narnia.

What justification is there for treating some branches of science as more important than others when judging a work’s scientific rigour?

Without such a justification, it’s difficult to say what we even mean by “scientific rigour”, much less to evaluate whether any particular work exhibits it.

Don’t get me wrong: many of my favourite stories would be considered hard sci-fi. It’s just that when I dig into what actually defines hard sci-fi as a genre, I’m not convinced there’s anything there apart from a generally cynical tone and a penchant for frequent expository infodumping. The whole “scientific rigour” thing feels like an aesthetic pose, no more essential to the substance of a work than pulp sci-fi’s batwinged spaceships and noisy zap-guns. And there’s nothing wrong with that - but boy do some folks get worked up about it!

Reblog/Like this if your blog is based on:

- A Court of Thorns and Roses
- A Court of Mist and Fury
- Throne of Glass
- Six of Crows
- Rainbow Rowell
- YA fiction
- Books in general
Hi, guys, I am a newcomer with an unhealthy obsession for books and the series mentioned above, so my blog will pretty much be revolving around them and the books that I have yet to discover. So, if you are a book junkie too and post about books a lot, let me know!

2017 Popsugar Ultimate Reading Challenge

1. A book recommended by a librarian
2. A book that’s been on your TBR list for way too long
3. A book of letters
4. An audiobook
5. A book by a person of color
6. A book with one of the four seasons in the title
7. A book that is a story within a story
8. A book with multiple authors
9. An espionage thriller
10. A book with a cat on the cover
11. A book by an author who uses a pseudonym
12. A bestseller from a genre you don’t normally read
13. A book by or about a person who has a disability
14. A book involving travel
15. A book with a subtitle
16. A book that’s published in 2017
17. A book involving a mythical creature
18. A book you’ve read before that never fails to make you smile
19. A book about food
20. A book with career advice
21. A book from a nonhuman perspective
22. A steampunk novel
23. A book with a red spine
24. A book set in the wilderness
25. A book you loved as a child
26. A book by an author from a country you’ve never visited
27. A book with a title that’s a character’s name
28. A novel set during wartime
29. A book with an unreliable narrator
30. A book with pictures
31. A book where the main character is a different ethnicity than you
32. A book about an interesting woman
33. A book set in two different time periods
34. A book with a month or day of the week in the title
35. A book set in a hotel
36. A book written by someone you admire
37. A book that’s becoming a movie in 2017
38. A book set around a holiday other than Christmas
39. The first book in a series you haven’t read before
40. A book you bought on a trip

Advanced
41. A book recommended by an author you love
42. A bestseller from 2016
43. A book with a family member term in the title
44. A book that takes place over a character’s lifespan
45. A book about an immigrant or refugee
46. A book from a genre/subgenre you’ve never heard of
47. A book with an eccentric character
48. A book that’s more than 800 pages
49. A book you got from a used book sale
50. A book that’s been mentioned in another book
51. A book about a difficult topic
52. A book based on mythology