May 21st, 2007

accordion santa

the to-read pile

In a mildly distressing but all-too-predictable development, recently I've been accumulating reading material more quickly than I've been reading it. There are two things that I'm currently in the middle of reading:

1) The June 2007 issue of Asimov's. I just finished Jack Skillingstead's Scrawl Daddy story, which I didn't really get, and have left two short stories (including one by Neal Asher, who some of you may recall), plus a book review column and a poem by Greg Beatty.

2) The Diana Burgin/Katherine Tiernan O'Connor translation of Mikhail Bulgakov's The Master and Margarita. This is the second translation of this book I've read; it is the more complete of the two, but the other one is a far more enjoyable translation. So it goes.

Those will keep me occupied for a little while, but once I'm done with them what should I read next?

Here are the options:

I have six unread science fiction anthologies, so I could do another Anthology Deathmatch.
0(0.0%)
John Brunner's "Muddle Earth" (276 pages). A lateish Brunner (1993), but possibly one with a sense of humor.
0(0.0%)
Vernor Vinge's "Rainbows End" (381 pages). Hugo-nominated, I believe.
0(0.0%)
Connie Willis's "Uncharted Territory" (149 pages).
3(27.3%)
Ken Macleod's "Cosmonaut Keep" (336 pages).
2(18.2%)
Keiichi Sigsawa's "Kino No Tabi: Book One of The Beautiful World" (205 pages). I love the anime series "Kino's Journey" which I believe is based on this series.
2(18.2%)
Joe Haldeman's "Camouflage" (289 pages).
0(0.0%)
Rudy Rucker's "Mad Professor" (301 pages). A collection of stories.
1(9.1%)
I have accumulated about a dozen issues of The Economist that I could start trying to work my way through.
2(18.2%)
The July 2007 issue of Asimov's, with stories by Nancy Kress, Brian Stableford, Chris Roberson, John Schoffstall, Robert Reed, and Michael Swanwick. (141 pages)
1(9.1%)


If you have questions or comments about any of these options, comment away!
head explode

Conservapedia revisited

Having seen the latest versions of the conservapedia pages for Homo sapiens [in the discussion for that page we see: 'Can we add the creationist view on "Homo Sapiens?"'/'Yes, but keep it neutral.'] and the page for dinosaurs , I am a little sad that conservapedia hasn't discovered trilobites yet. (They're benthic and vagile, you know.)

(I started clicking around Conservapedia again after stumbling across uncyclopedia's article on it.)