Anthologies Answer Questions

Okay, so I said to myself: “I haven’t read contemporary English-language short fiction SF for a while. Wonder what I should look at…”

Then it occurred to me that the TOCs of two year’s best anthologies — The Best Science Fiction & Fantasy of the Year: Volume Twelve by Jonathan Strahan and The Year’s Best Science Fiction: Thirty-Fifth Annual Collection by Gardner Dozois — have been released.

“Maybe Jonathan and Gardner can throw a decent suggestion or two for me,” I reasoned.

Indeed, they were able to do that. Not that my tastes would necessarily converge with those of middle-aged humanoid editors, but a suggestion is a suggestion.

After looking at the tables of contents one can answer a number of question, namely:

Q: Which stories both editors like enough to include them in their anthologies?

There are seven of them:

  • An Evening with Severyn Grimes by Rich Larson
    from Asimov’s Science Fiction
    (July/August 2017, you can e-purchase the issue here)
  • The Martian Obelisk by Linda Nagata
    (you can read it here)
  • The Moon Is Not a Battlefield by Indrapramit Das
    from the anthology Infinity Wars
    (you can e-purchase it wherever you buy your books)
  • My English Name by R. S. Benedict
    from Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction
    (May/June 2017, you can e-purchase the issue here)
  • A Series of Steaks by Vina Jie-Min Prasad
    from Clarkesworld
    (you can read it here)
  • Sidewalks by Maureen McHugh
    from Omni
    (you can read it here)
  • Zen and the Art of Starship Maintenance by Tobias Buckell
    from the anthology Cosmic Powers
    (you can e-purchase it wherever you buy your books)

Three of them are freely available online and the rest will cost you something between five and ten bucks, which is not much and you get other stuff to read as well.

Q: Are all these stories universally loved?

Nope. Of the stories mentioned above, Rocket Stack Rank seems to have given the ones by Larson and Buckell five stars and the story by Das only two. Other are somewhere in between or have not been reviewed yet. Many of the other stories Dozois and Strahan have selected are fall into their “not recommended” or “average” categories.

In his Infinity Wars review, Joe Sherry of Nerds of a Feather, Flock Together, for example, thought that The Moon Is Not a Battlefield is far from being the best story in the anthology, but Strahan and Dozois seem to disagree. The prolific short fiction critic Charles Payseur, on the other hand, has 78 stories in his 2017 recommended reading list, out of which only three (A Series of Steaks by Vina Jie-Min Prasad; Pan-Humanism: Hope and Pragmatics by Jess Barber and Sara Saab; Carnival Nine by Caroline M. Yoachim) are included in either of the anthologies in case I counted correctly.

Nothing is everybody’s cup of space coffee, I guess.

Q: Based on these two anthologies, which seem to be be the most successful short fiction markets of 2017?

Asimov’s and Clarkesworld have seven stories in the anthologies, with one story in both (eight data points). Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction and have five stories, with one story in both (6 points). The third place is tied as well: anthologies Infinity Wars and Cosmic Powers have three stories in the anthologies, one of which appears in both (4 points). Close behind is Lightspeed with three stories (3 points).

Q: How about the most successful editors?

Sheila Williams and Neil Clarke naturally have most edited stories on the list, due to the prevalence of Asimov’s and Clarkesworld. On the third place we have John Joseph Adams who edited Cosmic Powers (three stories in anthos, one of which in both) and who also runs the magazine Lightspeed (three stories in the anthos). Next up is Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction’s C.C. Finlay, and then Jonathan Strahan himself — he edited Infinity Wars anthology plus a Greg Egan story for

Q: Who are the most best-of-anthologized short fiction authors?

Indrapramit Das, Greg Egan, Nancy Kress, Rich Larson, Suzanne Palmer and Alastair Reynolds all have two stories in the anthologies. Das and Larson presumably win this because the other of their stories is included in both. Strahan does not reprint several stories by the same author, but Dozois doesn’t seem to care and has two stories by several authors.

Q: How about gender parity?

There are 67 stories in the anthologies, and because 7 of them are in both, that leaves 60 individual stories. These 60 stories have been written by 57 individual authors (some authors have more than one stories and couple of stories are written by a pair of authors). Of these 57 authors, 25 (by my count) identify as female and 32 as male, so that’s about 44%-56% split.

You can count it multiple ways, of course, but the numbers don’t change much. If you want to calculate how many of the stories were written by females and how many by males (and if you count twice the stories that are in both anthologies), the ratio is 30-to-37, about 45%-55%.

The numbers are different for the separate anthologies, though. In Strahan’s book, the ratio above is very even (14 stories by females, 15 by males) whereas with Dozois’s picks the ratio is 16-to-22.

Q: Shouldn’t you have been reading a couple of stories instead of these silly calculations?

Probably! But now that I did make them, I don’t get the time back, so here they are and now you don’t have to do the same thing in case you want to know the answers to the questions above.

Q: There are other best of anthologies as well, aren’t there?

Sure. I may come back to this listing in case there will also be anthologies edited by Rich Horton (The Year’s Best Science Fiction & Fantasy xxxx), Neil Clarke (The Best Science Fiction of the Year: Volume X) and John Joseph Adams (The Best American Science Fiction and Fantasy xxxx) collecting 2017 stories as there have been in the past.

Speaking of that, I did a similar thing strictly for my own twisted pleasure of the five anthologies which repackaged stories published in 2015. Based on that data, it seems like there’s nothing too far out of the ordinary here. Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction seems to be doing a bit better reprint-anthology-wise than two years back at this point, whereas Lightspeed is doing somewhat worse — even though that is perhaps to be expected because Adams and Horton are more likely to reprint Lightspeed material. Asimov’s, Clarkesworld and Lightspeed were the markets whose stories from 2015 got reprinted the most.

Q: Anthologists’ and award voters’ tastes tend to differ a bit, am I right?


Speaking of 2015, there were in total six stories that were reprinted in four of the five best of anthologies, so that’s a pretty impressive consensus on them being very good. They were:

  • Botanica Veneris: Thirteen Papercuts by Ida Countess Rathangan by Ian McDonald, published in anthology Old Venus (edited by George R.R. Martin & Gardner Dozois), available online as a reprint on Clarkesworld.
  • Calved by Sam J. Miller, published in Asimov’s, available online on Miller’s site.
  • Capitalism in the 22nd Century by Geoff Ryman, published in anthology Stories for Chip (edited by Nisi Shawl & Bill Campbell).
  • The Game of Smash and Recovery by Kelly Link, published in Strange Horizons, available online.
  • Hello Hello by Seanan McGuire, published in anthology Future Visions: Original Science Fiction Inspired by Microsoft which is priced $0.00 in Amazon and various other places.
  • Today I Am Paul by Martin L. Shoemaker, published in Clarkesworld, available online.

Only the stories by McDonald and Shoemaker were able to make it to the Hugo longlist (none were finalists but that was a messy year in that respect) and Shoemaker was the only one to appear on the Nebula shortlist. None of these were on the Locus award shortlist. The conclusion one can draw is that the editors’ and the award voters’ tastes do differ, with the caveat that fewer casual short fiction readers probably read new original anthologies (such as Stories for Chip, Old Venus, or Future Visions) and it is therefore less likely for stories published in them to get on people’s nominating ballots.

However, it will be interesting to see what will be the best-of-anthologists’ common favorites this time around and whether they will be seen on award shortlists.

Q: Can you list the other stories that will be included in the two anthologies?


2084 (edited by George Sandison)

  • Babylon, Dave Hutchison

Analog: Science Fiction and Fact

  • The Proving Ground, Alec Nevala-Lee
  • Whending My Way Back Home, Bill Johnson
  • Nexus, Michael F. Flynn

Asimov’s Science Fiction

  • Zigeuner, Harry Turtledove
  • Triceratops, Ian McHugh
  • Winter Timeshare, Ray Nayler
  • An Evening with Severyn Grimes, Rich Larson
  • Number 39 Skink, Suzanne Palmer
  • The Discrete Charm of the Turing Machine, Greg Egan
  • Confessions of a Con Girl, Nick Wolven

Beneath Ceaseless Skies

The Book of Swords (edited by Gardner Dozois)

  • The Mocking Tower, Daniel Abraham
  • The Smoke of Gold is Glory, Scott Lynch

Boston Review

Chasing Shadows: Visions of Our Coming Transparent World (edited by by David Brin & Stephen W. Potts)

  • Elephant on Table, Bruce Sterling
  • Eminence, Karl Schroeder


Cosmic Powers: The Saga Anthology of Far-Away Galaxies (edited by John Joseph Adams)

  • The Dragon that Flew Out of the Sun, Aliette de Bodard
  • Zen and the Art of Starship Maintenance, Tobias Buckell
  • The Chameleon’s Gloves, Yoon Ha Lee

The Djinn Falls in Love (edited by Mahvesh Muraad & Jared Shurin)

  • Bring Your Own Spoon, Saad Z. Hossain

Extrasolar (edited by Nick Gevers)

  • Canoe, Nancy Kress
  • The Residue of Fire, Robert Reed

Infinite Stars (edited by Bryan Thomas Schmidt)

  • Night Passage, Alastair Reynolds

Infinity Wars (edited by Jonathan Strahan)

  • Mines, Eleanor Arnason
  • The Moon Is Not a Battlefield, Indrapramit Das
  • Dear Sarah, Nancy Kress


  • The Influence Machine, Sean McMullen


Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction

  • The History of the Invasion Told in Five Dogs, Kelly Jennings
  • Starlight Express, Michael Swanwick
  • My English Name, R.S. Benedict
  • There Used to Be Olive Trees, Rich Larson
  • The Hermit of Houston, Samuel R. Delany


Sirenia Digest

  • Fairy Tale of Wood Street, Caitlín R. Kiernan

Strange Horizons

Sunvault: Stories of Solarpunk and Eco-Speculation (edited by Phoebe Wagner and Brontë Christopher Wieland)

  • The Road to the Sea, Lavie Tidhar

Weight of Words: New Fiction Inspired by Images by Dave McKean (edited by Dave McKean and William Schafer)

  • Belladonna Nights, Alastair Reynolds


Visions, Ventures, Escape Velocities (edited by Ed Finn, Joey Eschrich, and Juliet Ulman), download the anthology for free

  • Vanguard 2.0, Carter Scholz
  • Death on Mars, Madeline Ashby


Not published in a magazine or anthology

  • Prime Meridian, Silvia Moreno-Garcia
  • The Martian Job, Jaine Fenn

So there’s some Jonathan Strahan and Gardner Dozois approved reading. Stories in Clarkesworld, Lightspeed, and other webzines (plus the free Visions, Ventures, Escape Velocities anthology) you can go read right now for free. Others you can purchase one way or another, or wait for the anthologies to come out.

Hugos 2017, part 2

Best Graphic Story

Best Editor: Short Form

Best Editor: Long Form

Best Professional Artist

Best Semiprozine

Best Fanzine

Best Fancast

Best Fan Writer

Best Fan Artist

Best Series

The John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer

Hugos 2017, part 1

Best Novelette

Best Short Story

Best Related Work

Best Dramatic Presentation: Long Form

Best Dramatic Presentation: Short Form

How Mad Genius Club Banned Me

Mad Genius Club, the joint blog of notable Sad Puppy activists such as Kate Paulk, Dave Freer, Amanda S. Green and others, banned me. There’s nothing special about that, of course. Blogs can ban commenters they don’t like for any reason, and that’s fine. Nobody has freedom of speech on other people’s websites.

If that was the whole thing, I’d be just slightly amused, but there’s more (and I must admit that I’m giggling a bit). They went through the trouble of writing a blog post about the incident. Naturally, I’m humbled by the attention of this bunch of professional writers, but I cannot resist commenting on their statements briefly.

I also have the screencaps of my offending comments, and reading them alongside the mad geniuses’ explanations is rather funny.

In case you didn’t go through the link to read the whole thing on Mad Genius Club, here are some of the highlights:

Unlike other sites, we don’t take glee in banning people and we bend over backwards to avoid doing so. We give warnings and then we warn again. In all the years of MGC, I can count on one hand — and still have fingers left — the number of people we have banned.

However, we have learned over the last few years that whenever we come to Hugo time, we get a few folks who come over with the sole purpose of condemning anything that doesn’t have to do with Fandom. We anticipated it would happen when the Dragon Awards were announced and then when the winners were named. What we didn’t anticipate was that one of the prime suspects would continue to ignore the warnings and then accuse us of doxxing them because we told that person that the only way they would be allowed to continue posting here is if they posted under their real name.

Yes, this person came back and accused us of trying to dox them.

Yes, that person’s comments have been deleted because they were told that was what would happen if they posted again under an alias.

I don’t have access to all (or most) or my deleted comments, but I guess these last few comments are enough to demonstrate how I “condemn anything that doesn’t have to do with Fandom”.

In the MGC post post All Hail the Dragon! Jason Cordova wrote (after complimenting the trophy’s design): “I can’t wait to see the final tally numbers of just how many people actually participated in the selection and voting process.”

The comment thread looked (and still looks) like this:


When the Dragon Awards were given out and voter figures were not released, there were a couple of comments that have since been deleted:

September 5, 2016 at 2:36 pm
Aaaaaaaand did we see the numbers? Nope.

September 5, 2016 at 4:32 pm
[…] either use your real name and quit the concern trolling behavior pattern (you show up on all the Hugo/award threads and hardly anywhere else, you derail with either irrelevant or marginally relevant comments, and you’re way the hell light on facts, even when what you say is technically correct) or quit commenting here. Your call. […]

September 5, 2016 at 10:45 pm
Whoa, trying to doxx people who disagree with you is not cool.

It’s your blog, of course, and it’s your right to prevent people from voicing opinions differing from yours if that is what you want to do. I don’t want to disturb people’s safe spaces and can stop commenting.

However, I have tried to state my opinions respectfully and politely here, even when other commenters have called me names and hurled abuse around.

“Derailing” the discussion with “irrelevant” comments is a bit confusing accusation. Releasing the voting numbers was explicitly discussed in the post I was commenting on. I said that I wasn’t sure they would be released and was told I was trying to smear the awards or something. Well, now they haven’t been released and to the best of my knowledge will never be. If you have different information about the matter, I’ll happily admit I was mistaken.

Well, now, I’m the first to admit that “trying to doxx” is probably too harsh a term to use in this context. After all, MSG people were not about to release my personal information without my consent, only demanding that I provide it.

Disagreeing with Sad Puppies can fill your social media with all kinds of garbage, though, and that is not something I’m interested in seeing in my personal accounts. For example, just today a dude called Thomas Monaghan tweeted me this out of the blue:

That doesn’t bother Spacefaring Kitten, but I can live without my real-life friends and family seeing this sort of nonsense. That’s why I’ll have to respectfully decline MGC’s offer and refrain from commenting there in the future.

So, that’s what went down, basically. But there’s more in today’s Mad Genius Club post. I’ll quote it below and add comments there.


Here’s the thing. When this person showed up, casting aspersions and making thinly veiled accusations against the Dragons, I did some checking. With only a very few exceptions, they had only commented on Hugo-related posts. This person — because it isn’t hard to find out who they are — is someone who does not tolerate what they see as dissenting opinions on their own social media pages. This is a person who has attempted, and on occasion, succeeded in having people kicked out of cons for being wrong-thinkers. I could go on and some of the others here may.

I have commented on Hugos and Dragon Awards, true. That’s about it as far as facts go in this paragraph, I guess. Kicking wrong-thinkers out of cons, huh? I’m sure I’d remember that. My social media is not in a language they understand, so I have my doubts about their knowing what opinions I tolerate there or not.

However, here’s the thing. It takes a lot to get a bunch of writers to get together to discuss what should happen on a blog, even a joint blog. The fact that this person took the majority of us out of writing and work to do just that says a lot. So, before you see it on Vile 770, yes, we did delete comments here. This was done after warnings — which you can find still in the comment sections on at least three recent posts. Did we like doing it? No.

We want free discourse here. As writers, we hate silencing discussion. But that isn’t what happened here. There was no discussion. There were thinly veiled attacks on a new award and why? Because it didn’t go the way certain parts of Fandom apparently thought or wanted it to. It’s not enough that they have turned the Hugos from a fan award, something it was founded as, to a Fan award. Now these folks are trying to tear down a new award because it let everyone vote — without paying for the privilege to do so.

Riiiiiight. I did guess right whether the Dragon Award voter numbers would be published or not, but this is a bit much, isn’t it. I have to say I didn’t realize I was tearing down a new award with the comments that were quoted previously in this post. 😀

So there it is. A very infrequent commenter was warned and chose to ignore the warning. That person then chose to use inflammatory comments to accuse us of something we were not doing, specifically of doxxing them. That person is no longer welcome at MGC unless and until they follow the rules as set out first by Dave and then reiterated by several others of us. But to accuse us of doxxing, when we are asking nothing more than to post under a real name, a name many of us already know, is disingenuous. We are not the ones with malicious intent.

Well, no matter how hard the MGC people try to trick me to doxxing myself, it is not something I plan to do, so I guess I’ll just have to turn down that offer.

Spacefaring Hugo Ballot 2016

There are 28 hours left before this year’s Hugo winners are announced. Due to timezones, I’ll have to wake up in an inhumane time to follow the stream. In the state I’ll be in, I am probably not going to remember what I voted for first in every category, so I’ll write it down here as a reminder for my tired self on tomorrow night.

Best Novel

  • Nothing.

Yeah, that’s what I did: left the novel blank. I didn’t manage to read all of them, so this seemed like the reasonable thing to do.

Best Novella

  • Perfect State by Brandon Sanderson

Okorafor’s Binti was very good as well, but in the end the concept of Perfect State won me over.

Best Novelette

  • And You Shall Know Her by the Trail of Dead by Brooke Bolander

Best read of the bunch, even though the prose could have been less purple in places. Stephen King’s Obits and Hao Jinfang’s Folding Beijing were also good, but they either had all the weaknesses of a Stephen King story or relied too much on coincidences to make the narrative work for me.

Best Short Story

  • Cat Pictures Please by Naomi Kritzer

How can you beat cat pictures? There’s just no way. Asymmetrical Warfare by S.R. Algernon and Space Raptor Butt Invasion by Chuch Tingle were also above No Award on my ballot.

Best Related Work

  • Between Light and Shadow: An Exploration of the Fiction of Gene Wolfe, 1951 to 1986 by Marc Aramini

It’s a decent book, probably. I find it hard to read Wolfe the way Aramini does, but in an overall terribly weak category this is the best thing.

Best Graphic Story

  • Invisible Republic vol 1 by  Corinna Bechko and Gabriel Hardman

Not enough science fiction comics are based on Irish anti-war folk music.

Best Dramatic Presentation / Long Form

  • Mad Max: Fury Road

Best Dramatic Presentation / Short Form

  • Doctor Who: Heaven Sent

Best Professional Editor / Short Form

  • Ellen Datlow

Best Professional Editor / Long Form

  • No Award

A protest vote.

Best Professional Artist

  • Larry Elmore

Best Semiprozine

  • Strange Horizons

A coin toss between SH and Uncanny Magazine.

Best Fanzine

  • File 770

Best source of what went down in 2015.

Best Fancast

  • Tales to Terrify

Best Fan Writer

  • Mike Glyer

Best Fan Artist

  • Matthew Callahan

Absolutely breathtaking.

The John W. Campbell Award

  • Andy Weir

Sheer aspiration porn.

That’s it. Let’s see if any of my picks wins this year.



No-awarding Editors and Avengers

I’m filling out my Hugo voting ballot and deciding what is going to float and which finalists will sink under the No Award option. Contenders who end up underwater will include, among others, all book editors and all the avengers.

My final votes in the Best Professional Editor (Long Form) and Best Dramatic Presentation (Long Form) categories — that is, book editors and movies — look like this:

Best Professional Editor (Long Form)

  1. No Award
  2. Sheila E. Gilbert
  3. Liz Gorinsky
  4. Jim Minz
  5. Toni Weisskopf
  6. Vox Day

Best Dramatic Presentation (Long Form)

  1. Mad Max: Fury Road
  2. The Martian
  3. Ex Machina
  4. Star Wars: The Force Awakens
  5. No Award
  6. Avengers: Age of Ultron

I don’t think that any of the novel editors does a bad job (ok, maybe one of them). This is strictly a protest vote against the insane category. How can anybody who is not an industry insider come to any conclusion about who is better than someone else in turning mediocre books into great ones? I have no clue.

Thinking about my own tastes, Gilbert’s list of edited works looked a little better than Gorinsky’s or Minz’s, but readers don’t have access to the editing process that we are really supposed to judge here.

The best alternative for this silly category I can think of would be Best Publisher, so I thought about that for a minute. With these editors, that would be DAW (Gilbert), Tor Books (Gorinsky), Baen (Minz & Weisskopf) and Castalia House (Vox Day).

So, what were the publishers of the year’s best novels?

If the Hugo finalists in the novel category are supposed to indicate which publishers really scored last year, that would be Orbit, Roc, Del Rey and William Morrow. Orbit has in fact two titles in there. No editors working for these publishers are on the Hugo ballot, even though the Hugo nominators consider their end products to be the best in the field.

On the Nebula ballot, the novel finalists’ publishing houses are: Orbit (twice, again), Tor (twice), Baen, Del Rey and Saga. At last some familiar names! However: Gorinsky didn’t edit the Nebula-nominated Tor books (Barsk and Updraft) and Minz didn’t edit the Nebula-nominated Baen book (Raising Caine) — nobody knows what Weisskopf edited because she keeps that a secret.

Yeah. Is this a strange list of best editors in the business or what?

Ok, how about the movies, then? The picks from 1 to 4 require no explanation. Mad Max is a masterpiece whereas The Martian, Ex Machina and the new Star Wars were all solid and enjoyable films. I am a bit saddened by the fact that the end of Ex Machina was so predictable. It was the only movie that wasn’t a sequel or an adaptation with a blockbuster budget and I liked the acting and the atmosphere quite a bit.

For Avengers, there was very little hope, considering my visceral hate of Captain America. He is the most boring and stupid creation in the history of human entertainment and he ruins every film that features him (becoming an agent of Hydra cannot be a bad career move for him). I also found out that I dislike Thor very much. Hulk and Iron Man should dump their loser friends and do it fast if they wish to end up higher on my ballot that sixth in a field of five in the future!

thumb down.gif

Aspiration Porn — Campbell Nominee Andy Weir

Category: John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer
Rabid Puppies

I think there’s still time to tackle a few Hugo nominees — or maybe not, because, as you know, Bob, John W. Campbell Award is not a Hugo. Still, I finally read The Martian, so let’s discuss Andy Weir for a minute.

As I have written earlier, Weir has ended up as a weird political football in the Hugo culture wars. Last year, various Sad/Rabid Puppy activists (such as this one) considered the fact that Weir hasn’t won a Hugo as proof of the literary feminist-communist social justice bias among the Worldcon fans. However, when the final numbers were released, it became clear that without the Puppy campaigns to mess things up, Andy Weir would have been a Campbell Award finalist (and The Martian would have almost made it into the ballot as well — even though it’s possible that it would have been judged ineligible). Instead, four Puppy authors of relatively unknown works were nominated alongside the eventual Campbell winner Wesley Chu and Weir was left on the sixth place (and out of the ballot).

This year, Weir is up there and he got the kennel votes as well.

Original The Martian is better than the Ridley Scott adaptation everybody’s probably seen. In it, the astronaut protagonist gets into more different kinds of trouble and sciences his way out of it, explaining what he does in his log entries. For me, reading the text that supposedly makes up those entries is a more engaging experience than watching Matt Damon do it.

The usual complaint against hard science fiction writing is that it’s technically bad, especially with characters, but Weir manages to write an entertaining superhuman. Come to think of it, that’s what astro/cosmo/taikonauts practically are.

While watching The Martian, I remember enjoying the cosmic visuals, but the reader of the book doesn’t have that and she has to be kept in awe of the science. It was quite impressive, considering that the natural sciences interest me very little. Still, Weir was able to force me into the aspiration porn mindset — ISN’T IT GREAT THAT THE HUMAN RACE HAS DONE SUCH A WONDERFUL THING AS GOING TO SPACE (AND MOSTLY ALSO MAKING IT BACK ALIVE??!!). Yeah, it is. Little less bable about making water and oxygen wouldn’t have hurt, but I guess that really paying attention to these technical details was what Weir’s project was about.

Andy Weir’s own story as a writer is another tale of aspirational pornography: he took some years off to write novels that nobody would buy, started to post his fiction online for free when that didn’t work out and slowly accumulated a readership of likeminded people. The Martian becoming a professionally published novel, a huge bestseller hit and later on a blockbuster movie was just a coincidence. Isn’t it great that a space nerd, who just does what he loves, manages to do such an awesome thing? Yeah!

So, nevermind Donald Trump and Vox Day and all the other party poopers, the human race can pull off pretty great stuff. Like in this video.

The Martian isn’t the best novel I’ve read lately, but I enjoyed it.

Spacefaring, Extradimensional Happy Score: 8.5/10 (and as a Hugo finalist in the Best Dramatic Presentation: Long category, I’ll give The Martian 7/10).


Other posts of interest: