JacketFlap connects you to the work of more than 200,000 authors, illustrators, publishers and other creators of books for Children and Young Adults. The site is updated daily with information about every book, author, illustrator, and publisher in the children's / young adult book industry. Members include published authors and illustrators, librarians, agents, editors, publicists, booksellers, publishers and fans. Join now (it's free).
Login or Register for free to create your own customized page of blog posts from your favorite blogs. You can also add blogs by clicking the "Add to MyJacketFlap" links next to the blog name in each post.
Blog Posts by Tag
In the past 7 days
Blog Posts by Date
Click days in this calendar to see posts by day or month
Viewing: Blog Posts Tagged with: cricket, Most Recent at Top [Help]
Results 26 - 47 of 47
How to use this Page
You are viewing the most recent posts tagged with the words: cricket in the JacketFlap blog reader. What is a tag? Think of a tag as a keyword or category label. Tags can both help you find posts on JacketFlap.com as well as provide an easy way for you to "remember" and classify posts for later recall. Try adding a tag yourself by clicking "Add a tag" below a post's header. Scroll down through the list of Recent Posts in the left column and click on a post title that sounds interesting. You can view all posts from a specific blog by clicking the Blog name in the right column, or you can click a 'More Posts from this Blog' link in any individual post.
In the vociferous arguing about the ins and outs of who behaved worst over the second test etc etc there are people implying that criticising the Australian cricket team is unAustralian and whingey.1
Please! I love my country, I love cricket, but when the men’s team behave like dickheads they should be called on it.
People who play sport at a professional level are not exempt from the social contract. No one is. Writers (to pick a random example out of the air) shouldn’t behave like dickheads either. Recently I was at an award ceremony where the speeches of the winners were generous and moving. All but one. This one person got up to accept their award without a gram of graciousness. Their speech was about the importance of their book and the judges’ perspicacity in picking it as the winner. That speech left me not wanting to read anything by that writer. I don’t even want to meet that writer.
Very few people in this world achieve things without considerable help; acting like you did it all on your own is graceless and rude.
Ponting’s and the rest of the team’s arrogance and inability to admit that they ever do anything wrong makes me ambivalent when Australia wins test matches. Don’t get me wrong. I love for Australia to win, but, well, I love it a lot more when they’re gracious in victory.2
So, yeah, this debate isn’t just about cricket. It’s about how people should behave. How we should treat the people around us. There’s a reason that photo of Flintoff offering commiserations to Brett Lee has become so famous. It captures a moment of perfect grace:
Indeed. I’d go further: professional sports players at the top level (including test cricketers) are paid enormous amounts of money to basically be on show. The money they are making is, in part, compensation for having to watch what they say and act decently in public. Take it or leave it.
Unfortunately, far too many, in far too many sports, take their position as a licence to act like that word Justine used.
melina marchetta said, on 1/9/2008 12:35:00 AM
I agree, Justine. I went to see the cricket on the first day so I felt obliged to watch the whole test match (also because I could hear the cheering from the SCG inside my house). But I had to switch it off after they won because they were so embarrassing in their victory. Although if anyone dares to call their behaviour unaustralian I think I’ll be sick.
lizabelle said, on 1/9/2008 3:25:00 AM
What’s more Australian than whinging? I thought it was us Pommies who did all the whinging!
(I love that photo - thanks for posting it.)
Patrick said, on 1/9/2008 5:07:00 AM
OOoohh!! Who gave the speech about their important books of fiction? ’cause if they’re that important, I need to read them.
Don’t worry, you’re not saying bad things about this writer. You’re reporting the fact that he writes important books.
~grace~ said, on 1/9/2008 6:41:00 AM
and I thought this was going to be a post about me…your topic was probably much more interesting, though.
Justine said, on 1/9/2008 8:09:00 AM
Melina: Yup. The whole notion of “unAustralian” or “unAmerican” irritates the hell out of me.
Libabelle: Yes, that’s right. Just joshing!
Patrick: It’s such an important book by such an important person that I feel sure you will find it on your own.
Grace: But this post is about you.
Mahek said, on 1/9/2008 9:44:00 AM
flintoff - the only british sportsman who i think is worth something. the others are like ‘it’s all about the money’.
emily said, on 1/9/2008 2:21:00 PM
wow, justine - only you could classify something as whining but make it so interesting and greatly written. i am officially in awe.
also, i don’t really want to buy something from someone who is mean or distracted. same concept as the author.
can we guess who the author is? pretty please?
Justine said, on 1/9/2008 2:24:00 PM
Emily: You can guess all you like but I will never say who it was. I can tell you that it was not a young adult writer.
Patrick said, on 1/9/2008 4:41:00 PM
Pretentious fiction writer. I’m going to guess it was a SF writer, older, and male.
SCALZI!
aden said, on 1/9/2008 7:31:00 PM
(I’ll throw my hat in the ring with Harlan Ellison.)
As to behavior, it is a shame there is such a deficit of grace in the world, because there are plenty of sportsmen here in the States who desperately lack it.
The university I studied at had a men’s basketball team famous for jackassery. The coach was really a great person, though, it just never rubbed off on his charges (by eighteen I’d guess it’s impossible to teach humility to anyone without some major crisis stepping in). The t-shirts that got handed out during games, then, didn’t say a thing about the team–they just had GO LARRY emblazoned in huge letters.
I’ve had a few people writing to ask why I’m not commenting on the disastrous second test between Australia and India. There are several reasons. I’ve not been able to follow any of the cricket as closely as I’d like. I haven’t had time.
But mostly because I’m embarrassed. And, well, I think Greg Baum and Mike Coward have expressed what I feel about it so well that i don’t really need to add anything.
I will though: I’m sick of Aussie sportsmen (and, frankly, it’s the blokes, not the women) behaving like dickheads. I’m not Indian, so the bad behaviour of the Indians doesn’t make me ashamed, and, you know what? We’re the host country here. We should be behaving like hosts. What’s wrong with a bit of graciousness? The Aussie team of 1960-61 managed it up against that fabulous West Indies team. Why can’t our current team be more like them?
Look, unlike Mike Coward, I don’t think there was ever a golden age of well-behaved cricket teams. There’s always been cheating and sledging and arrogant behaviour.1 But it didn’t used to always be us. Right now the Aussie cricket team reminds me strongly of the English under Jardine back in 1932-33. It’s not a pleasant thought.
That said, I still wish I’d been able to see it . . . And I really hope the next two tests are less horrible with much better umpiring!
In fact, there’s a whole book about it: It’s Not Cricket : A History of Skulduggery, Sharp Practice and Downright Cheating in the Noble Game by Simon Rae.
I don’t know … to call the second test disastrous seems a bit much — the outcomes since the test have been disastrous, but the game itself was great.
Maybe I’m just a one-eyed fan or something, but I still can’t see too much to complain about here … they do play tough, and uncompromising, and everything else, but it’s not all a one way street. Part of India’s reaction does seem to be just about the fact they lost a very close game, and the two things they’re most angry about (bad umpiring and the player suspension) can hardly be described as Australia’s fault anyway.
At least you linked to Mike Coward’s story — that was balanced and fair, unlike Peter Roebuck’s ridiculous “Ponting must be fired” call on the SMH site.
Well, back to rewriting tips I think …
Cheryl’s Mewsings » Blog Archive » Test Match said, on 1/8/2008 12:19:00 AM
[…] you may only have heard the bad stuff. Justine has been stuck in New York with no coverage and is not happy. I’m not surprised, because things are fast descending into […]
David S. said, on 1/8/2008 1:18:00 AM
Yep, Symonds should have walked, India got some bad ump decisions, but so did Australia and that’s always the situation. C’mon after the last tour of India *both teams* agreed to crack down on racist taunts. How come as soon as one of them complains it’s suddenly the end of the world and “monkey” is a compliment? I’m 100% behind the Indian commentator who called for *all* sledging to be banned, but it seems that only applies to others where India are concerned… Both captains need to get together and agree to ban it completely, forever. No excuses, no exceptions, no more.
It was still the best and most exciting Test I’ve seen in many years. I was on the edge of my seat; you missed a fantastic game.
As for Peter Roebuck’s call for Ponting to be fired… type “Peter Roebuck caning” into Google and wonder, as I have for years, why the SMH continue to employ a convicted criminal every summer.
lili said, on 1/8/2008 1:52:00 AM
i just want to smack ponting in the head. he is a smarmy git. sledging aside, his totally ungracious ‘oh yeah, of course we were always going to win’ comments after the match were a) being a poor winner and b) wrong.
he’s an amazing batsman, but being captain of the Australian cricket team is more than that, and i don’t think he realises that any more than he realises that cricket is about more than winning.
emily said, on 1/8/2008 4:05:00 AM
i hate being an american. i didn’t get that whole post. and all the comments leave me scratching my head too.
cricket sounds really cool (though i don’t understand it).
Justine said, on 1/8/2008 5:55:00 AM
Yeah, I read the Roebuck piece. Dramaqueen much?
The Oz cricket team has behaved like this before. I was cringing in 2003 when we toured the West Indies too.
Lili: Yeah, I’ve never liked Ponting as captain. Brilliant batsman. Not so good at dealing with human beings. He should stick to the horses.
But like I said I didn’t see any of it. My parents were at the SCG for Day 2 had a fantastic time.
Patrick said, on 1/8/2008 6:54:00 AM
This is interesting, but not nearly as important as American Football.
IT’S the playoffs!!!!!!!
What I’ve Learned So Far » Blog Archive » Test said, on 1/8/2008 2:13:00 PM
[…] You can read more from the estimable Justine Larbalestier. […]
The last forty-eight hours have seen more traffic to this blog than ever before. More than 30 other blogs linked to the “How to Rewrite” post, bringing more than 2,000 visitors on both days. Wow. I usually get around 800 a day. Thanks, everyone. I wasn’t saying anything particularly new, but I’m glad if my take on the obvious is useful to some of you. Yay!
In case you were wondering, my most popular (by a country mile) posts are:
So if I want to attract lots of hits I have to give writing tips or talk about heart break. Maybe I should do a post on How to Write about Your Heart Being Broken?1
Or I could keep doing what I always do which is to write about whatever I feel like. Such as the Australia-India series back home. Go, Tendulkar! Make it a competition!
Hiya, I just left this on Scott’s blog too, but it seems smarter to say the same thing twice, since it pertains to both of you.
When you guys are in Michigan for the ConFusion thing, are there any chances you can do something outside of the con? Chiefly, something that doesn’t cost $45 to get into?
Thanks.
Sash said, on 1/4/2008 3:00:00 AM
Argh, summer! i was wondering when you’d get onto cricket.
watch those numbers plummet.
sacrilege, i know.
Tim said, on 1/4/2008 5:27:00 AM
re chris isaak: yes, a whinger, but what a voice!
re tendulkar: i’ve long wanted him to show one more run of proper “little master” form before he hangs up his boots. now would seem to be the perfect time . . .
Patrick said, on 1/4/2008 6:07:00 AM
You could try posting pictures of a cat.
lunamoth said, on 1/4/2008 6:32:00 AM
I think maybe it’s because the way you said it seems to click more than the way others have said it…? maybe?
lunamoth: Maybe. I think there’s a real thirst for straightforward how-tos about most anything really. A lot of people want to know how to write (43,000,000 google hits), but a lot of people also want to sing (5,640,000 hits) and dance (16,000,000) and deal with depression (3,460,000) and tie a tie (14,900,000).
lunamoth said, on 1/4/2008 8:33:00 AM
I think there’s a real thirst for straightforward how-tos about most anything really.
That, and also I think that various people assimilate information very differently. This post mightn’t have worked for some, but it worked for me.
But sometimes, yeah, what could have taken a 50k-word ‘how to’ book to explain (which is drudgery and boringness and another-book-for-the-pile-to-be-read), you managed to aencapsulate into a single blog post in an easy-to-follow manner. Were you an educator by chance?
Patrick said, on 1/4/2008 10:23:00 AM
Maybe just pictures of Scott, with odd captions of what he might really be thinking. it’ll be a new trend - ‘LOLScott’.
Kadie-Wa said, on 1/4/2008 1:22:00 PM
I think that you should do a combo of both.
That’d be cool.
Mary Elizabeth S. said, on 1/4/2008 6:05:00 PM
Keep doing what you always do! Your writing advice wouldn’t be as appealing otherwise. Your blog posts show us a bit of who you are, and tips us off that you’re the right sort of person to be taking advice from. (That and the whole ‘published’ thing, of course, but there’ve been published authors whose advice didn’t work for me just as there’ve been non-published writers whose adive worked wonders.)
~Mary
Justine said, on 1/4/2008 6:53:00 PM
Mary: Tee hee. No worries about that. The minute I feel pressured to get lots of hits blah blah blah that’s the minute I lose interest in this here blog. Many of my favourite posts are amongst the least trafficked.
Right now and for the last three + years it’s been a fun, relaxing break from my work. If that stops then I’ll stop bloggen.
ysa said, on 1/4/2008 7:32:00 PM
It is vitally important to have more crickety bloggy goodness. Please ma’am, may we have some more? It is so vitally important that I am considering blogging myself so that I can talk about my favorite team, the Baysiders. Which no-one has heard of but the teams in my league. I am just not as interesting as you are, justine!
And the book bloggy bits are not so bad either!
Mary Elizabeth S. said, on 1/5/2008 9:12:00 PM
Glad to hear it! I loves your blog just the way it is. (and no, it’s not *just* because of the quokkas…)
~Mary
Sheryl said, on 1/9/2008 2:47:00 PM
Or, apparently, you could post about why you hate Oprah:
Someone just wrote to ask me what to do when the writing is not going well. Fortunately, Diana Peterfreund has just written on this because I have no useful answer.
I suspect my own struggles with sentences that crumble as I type, with plot and character and meaning twisting out of my control, are at least partly because I’m very early on in my career. Old timers are much smarter about this stuff. Fer instance, my parents heard Thomas Kenneally interviewed the other day and he said that the writing got easier as he got older. After having written for more than forty years and having produced a bazillion gazillion novels (or, you know, thirty odd) he knows his own process and what to expect.
I don’t.
Not really. I’ve only written six novels and the writing of each one was different. I’ve been a freelancer writer for four years. I still have no idea how long it takes me to write a book. I can tell you how long the last one took, but not how long the next one will.
When you’re starting out you don’t know what to expect. You don’t know what you’re capable of. When the crappy writing days hit you—it’s a shock and you don’t know how to handle them.
Even super disciplined writers, like my old man, have days of words dissolving into puddles of putresence, when they can’t focuss, and can barely squeeze out five words let alone a thousand.
What he does is keep writing. That’s where the discipline comes in. The act of getting yourself into the chair and typing—even if the words you’re producing make William McGonagall look like a genius—can be enough to get you past the crap and into the good.
Or not.
Sometimes people just need a break.
And only the writer can figure out which it is.
Personally, I’m pretty much always convinced that I need a break. Preferably in a place where there’s plentiful cricket coverage (alas, poor England), the food is fabulous, and the wine even better.
Sadly, my deadlines say otherwise . . .
1 Comments on An unanswerable question, last added: 7/31/2007
Justine, at least when you hunker down to it you get done, you persevere! YOu get critical acclaim and masses of adring fans. I get frutrated and bored and angry, advice please!
Here's a new illustration just published in the May '07 issue of Cricket. It's done in the same "sketchy style" as TEA WITH MRS. ROSENBERG
I've had quite a few people lately telling me that they would like to learn to use Painter, but are too worried about a high learning curve.
While in reality Painter may be a complex program (there are a lot of things it can do using filters and brush building and "shapes"for example) In all the years I've used this software, I have been ignoring every tool but the few I actually need. I am only doing three basic things for each picture.
Setting a size (usually 300 DPI) for my image and choosing the canvas texture
Choosing a brush tool and color so I can actually sketch/draw/paint
Using layers to keep my pencil drawings separate from my watercolor layer while I work.
Then I just save it as a .tif if it's to be uploaded to my FTP site for the client to grab. If it's just a sketch, at a smaller resolution, I will just compress it and email it to the art director.
I don't recommend attending classes or sitting through tutorials or heaven forbid, reading the manual. I think the best way to learn Painter is to sit down and play with it. If you get stuck somewhere, Google your specific question. Even the most basic questions have been asked and answered on the internet. Or, you can just send your question to me and I'll try to help.
0 Comments on Poem Illustration for Cricket as of 1/1/1900
I appreciate your comments about Painter. I am a Painter geek with very little patience for a manual or a tutorial. I find after the number of years I have used Painter and continually upgraded it, there are some seven or eight tools I use consistently with some of the oil brushes being my favorites. I like that you can set the bristles on a brush apart and grab a range of colors at one time.
Your work shows a mastery of the program but more than that a mastery of painting, composition and good illustration.
Australia just thrashed England in their Super Eight match. They barely broke a sweat doing it. Ha ha!
I discovered this lovely review of the Magic or Madness trilogy by a future librarian. It’s pretty spoiler free if you want a squizz. I really liked this bit:
The magical abilities are also not what one expects—Reason has an amazing aptitude for math and patterns. Her friend Tom can create magical clothing, and Jay-Tee’s magic is in movement—like running and dancing. (None of this, ooh-look-at-me-I can-fly-or-read-minds . . . etc.)
I did that on purpose! And someone noticed! Woo hoo!
Also Scott just read me the almost last bit of Extras and it is good! So. Very. Good.
And on Tuesday we fly to San Antonio where it is much much warmer than NYC and there are many cool librarians and young adult writers for us to hang with. Happiness!
yeah me too..he should post like the back of the book on his website or something. that would be awsome!
ooh san antonio is only like a days drive away! maybe my mom will drive me..haha that would be a miracle if that happened.
are yall going to fly through arkansas? or like go around.
Well i hope you have fun in texas!
Mitali Perkins said, on 4/8/2007 6:04:00 PM
Hope to see you in San Antonio. I’ll try and come to your signing if I’m around.
Ted Lemon said, on 4/9/2007 11:17:00 AM
We just came from Austin, which is close to San Antonio, and wound up driving for six hours through sleet and freezing rain. I don’t know what happened to Texas - I thought it was supposed to be warm there.
Fortunately for you, the weather forecast suggests that they will be experiencing record heat the next couple of days, so you won’t have to deal with that. But don’t tempt the weather gods - you could be next…
Dess said, on 4/9/2007 11:32:00 AM
Im so jealous, Justine. While you get to go to san Antonio, im stuck here in Pennsylvania where its freezing cold. Yesterday was Easter and it was colder yesterday then on Christmas day! So jealous.
Rebecca said, on 4/9/2007 12:59:00 PM
“i thought it was supposed to be warm there.”
“the weather forecast suggests that they will be experiencing record heat the next couple of days”
my world has been turned upside down. it was THIRTY-EIGHT DEGREES here. i had to go out and get two new sweaters, because i had nothing. NOTHING!! and within 24 hours, it’s supposed to be back in the 80’s. what am i supposed to do? and more to the point, what am i supposed to do with these sweaters?
yay tla!!!!
Sara said, on 4/9/2007 4:02:00 PM
Thanks sooo much for mentioning my blog!!! I’d gush about how much I love your books… but I’m guessing that was already pretty apparent from my review.
(I was wondering last night why my blog stats were suddenly really really high, especially considering that it was Easter… now I understand )
El and Rachel Brown correctly surmised that the fan half of my question was inspired by the bruhaha about whether John Scalzi should be nominated for a fan writing Hugo or not.
For the record: yes, Scalzi should, and I hope he wins for all the reasons that have been described in great detail here, here and here. I’m also not comfortable with people telling other people that they are or aren’t “fans” or “geeks” or anything else. Those are the kind of labels you get to choose for yourself.
The geek half was inspired by my being asked to contribute a story to an anthology about geeks and geekery. My instant response was to say, “No.” Not just because I can’t write short stories, but because I couldn’t begin to think of a geeky story. (Plus no way am I biting the head off a chicken. Ewww.)
Also I was just curious about how you lot define those words. Part of what’s interesting in the great Is-Scalzi-a-Fan debate is that there were so many different definitions of what a “fan” is, which led to much talking at cross purposes. Seems the same is true of “geek”. Veronica defined it the way I would, but Cecil defined it the way I would define “fan”.
A number of people take “fan” to mean someone who loves something uncritically. I can’t help but laugh at that when I think of the number of letters I’ve had from self-proclaimed Magic or Madness fans who tell me in minute detail the stuff they don’t like about the trilogy, just as much as the stuff they do. Clearly, these are slippery, slippery terms.
Thanks everyone for such fascinating responses.
So why do I call myself a fan but not a geek?
Let’s take the word “fan” first. I’m not a fan of science fiction, which may sound odd for someone who did a Phd on it, which became a book. To be honest the whole PhD thing was never a passion. All I’ve ever wanted to do is be a writer, but as everyone knows there’s no money in that, so I went for an academic career to support my writing habit. The subject of my PhD was an accident. I’d read sf as a kid but I’d read lots of other things too and, honestly, I think the vast majority of sf (film, television or film) is on the nose. Many of the so-called classics of the genre like the work of Isaac Asimov or Arthur C. Clarke or Star Trek or Blade Runner leave me cold.
It’s the world building that does it for me with science fiction, being transported to somewhere that is not like the world I know. I get that just as readily from books about places I’m unfamiliar with: Japanese crime books fascinate me; Australian ones not so much. I also get that button pressed by books from the past (Jane Austen, Tale of Genji*, Elizabeth Gaskell, Miles Franklin et al) historicals, fantasy, westerns and so on. Raymond Chandler, Patricia Highsmith and Jim Thompson create worlds that are almost completely alien to me. I adore their work.
I love the writings of Samuel R. Delany and Maureen McHugh and Ursula K. Le Guin. But I’m not convinced that it’s the science fictioness of their work that does it for me. I’m just as happy when they’re writing fantasy or memoirs or criticism or blogging or whatever else they choose to write. I love the way they string their words and sentences and paragraphs together. Yum.
If I were to be banned from reading one genre it would be less of a hardship for me if that genre were sf rather than fantasy or historicals. (Naturally, I exempt manga from all these categories.)
I’m also not a fan in the sense that Ulrika is talking about. That is I’m not a member of a community that came together around a love of science fiction in the late 1930s and is still going strong today. Or am I? I definitely feel like I’m a part of the WisCon community. For years I helped with the running of that particular science fiction convention. I was on the ConCom. Can you get much more fannish than that? And, like John Scalzi, I feel very much at home with many members of the science fiction community who definitely consider themselves to be fans.
However, I’ve never written fanfiction. So I’m not part of that thriving aspect of fandom. Nor do I read it. Though there are definitely books and stories I love, like The Wide Sargasso Sea, that are a kind of fanfiction—but the kind that plays around with out of copyright texts and thus gets to be published.
I’m happy to call myself a fan not just because of the WisCon thing, but because there are a lots of things I love. Elvis Presley’s voice. Cricket. Madeleine Vionnet and Hussein Chalayan’s clothes. The writing of way too many people to list here. I love Bring It On and Deadwood and Blue Murder and My Brilliant Career and ES and Nana and Osamu Tezuka and mangosteens and the food of countries like Spain and Mexico and Thailand and Japan and Italy and Ethiopia and the great wines of Australia and New Zealand and Argentina and South Africa and Italy and France and Spain and many other places.
I don’t think the word “fan” implies uncritical love. There are clothes of Vionnet and Chalayan’s that I think are naff, Cricket matches that bore me, Angela Carter books ditto, and Spanish food and French wine I’ve had to spit out.
So why aren’t I geek?
First up, the word is American and doesn’t have much resonance for me. I never heard it as a kid nor “nerd” neither. Not outside of a John Hughes movie. (That’s not true of younger Aussies.)
The people I know who are self-described nerds or geeks have passions for stuff that bores me. Video games, role-playing games, board games and the insides of computers. I have many friends who are into these things and, well, I am not like them in this regard. I do not know what “chaotic good” is, even though Scott’s explained it to me like a hundred times.
I’ve had flirtations with various computer games over the years, but my attention span for them is microscopic, and ulimately I’d much rather be reading a book.
Once I got into Go for about a year, to the extent that I was playing it with a bunch of Go fanatics on servers in Korea, and reading books on it. But it was largely research for a novel I was writing. When I finished writing the book my interest in playing Go lapsed. It’s still by far the best game I’ve ever played, but I doubt I’d even remember how anymore. I haven’t played since 1999.
Many of my geeky friends are also collectors.
I hate stuff. I spend a large chunk of my life recycling and throwing stuff out. I hate things that sit on the mantlepiece and serve no purpose other than to collect dust. I see no point in them. Nor in stuffed animals, or dolls, or collectable cards, or any of that. I love cricket but I have no desire for cricket stuff cluttering up my house and am endlessly giving away the cricket tat people give me (clothes excluded).
If I collect anything, it’s books, but I cull them ruthlessly and often. If I’m not going to reread it, or I’ve had it for more than a year without even cracking the spine and there seems little likelihood that I will, then out the book goes.
Also I have a terrible memory. Always have had. I can’t tell you what year Bring it On came out, or who directed it, or who all the actors are without looking it up. I have to read a book a billion times before I can remember any details about it and even then I’m pretty crap. I just did a test on Pride and Prejudice I don’t think I’ve read any book more times than that one. I got 5 out of 10. I would not be able to tell an original Vionnet gown from a knock off. I do not have the trainspotting gene.
So, yes to “fan” and to “enthusiast” (thanks, Bennett), no to “geek” or “nerd”. I’m also quite happy to be called a “dag”. Yes, I am also a “spaz”. (Though, Christopher, I say to you: Know thyself!) And “dilettante”? Oh, yes, that’s me. I have the attention span of a gnat**.
*I confess I have never finished The Tale of Genji despite repeated attempts. The bits I’ve read have been fabulous. It’s just that the book is so damned heavy and hard to read in bed. I know, I know . . . dilettante.
**Except for blogging, apparently. Bugger but this was a long post . . . Sorry!
9 Comments on Of fans and geeks, last added: 4/2/2007
“I do not know what ‘chaotic good’ is, even though Scott’s explained it to me like a hundred times.”
Cory Doctorow - and all things Cory Doctorow-ish — is a perfect example of “chaotic good.”
Sir Tessa said, on 3/31/2007 4:54:00 PM
For me ‘fan’ has connotations of ‘fandom’, which is a minefield, and every fandom I’ve drifted by with mild interest has very quickly put me off getting involved in anyway. I think, to me, ‘fan’ implies activity within the fandom, instead of just sitting and enjoying quietly, which I what I do.
‘geek’ has connotations of…well, I don’t know exactly, but I know I don’t wear it.
‘nerd’ comes from being a nerd at school. Somewhat outcast, not really mainstream.
‘dag’ is a beautiful word and also applies perfectly.
(I was about to type that as ‘perfically’. Ugh.)
Justine said, on 3/31/2007 7:40:00 PM
Sir Tessa: Mmmm, yes, we are all dags. Dags rule!
But what I’m hearing you saying is that you are not a fan because you do not join things or take part in communities. So really you’re saying that you’re a misanthropist. Yes, grumpy Sir Tessa?
Rebecca said, on 3/31/2007 10:37:00 PM
nothing wrong with long posts.
dag just sounds….really dirty, to my american ears. dunno why.
i have called myself a fan, a geek, a nerd, a dork, and a variety of other things. i give myself all the labels, instead of just one! ha.
Sir Tessa said, on 3/31/2007 11:39:00 PM
I’m a daggy misanthrope at that.
Justine said, on 4/1/2007 12:02:00 PM
Rebecca: That’s the beauty of it . . . you get to call yourself whatever you want.
There’s nothing dirty about dags. (Well, okay, if you’re thinking about the original meaning then, yes, there is, but let’s not go there, eh?)
Sir Tessa: You are an adorable daggy misanthrope.
Colleen said, on 4/2/2007 12:09:00 AM
It’s funny, but I never thought of “geek” as a derogatory term. My husband is an aviation geek, a business geek (he actually likes reading and writing contracts), a wood working geek and on and on. I thought geek just meant something you really liked and you enjoyed doing or learning about. (I would be an aviation history geek, a WWI geek, a polar exploration geek, etc.)
I also wonder when being a fan meant being an excessive fan. In other words, I saw Star Wars (way back in 1977) in the theater and I was a Star Wars fan. Other than my brother having some models that he built and hung from the ceiling, we didn’t have any Star Wars “stuff” but we liked the movies so I thought that made us fans. Same goes for certain music, food, tv, etc. Aren’t you just a fan if you like something - do you have to be crazy and dress up in costumes and read everything ever written about it and learn to speak Klingon or something in order to be a fan?
I think these words might have gotten mangled over the years or something. I mean really, how can referring to someone who has more than 10,000 Alaskan flight hours as an “aviation geek” be a bad thing? Not that I’m all worshipful of my husband or anything (perish the thought!) but he’s okay with the term geek - it just means he knows a lot of airplane shit and that’s okay.
We are also fans of science fiction movies and Guns N Roses. I hope that doesn’t scare anyone - ha!
Justine said, on 4/2/2007 6:02:00 AM
Colleen: I hope you don’t think I was implying there’s anything wrong with being either a geek or a fan. Absolutely not!
You both sound like quintessential geeks. Of course, as I said, people use these terms in lots of different ways. The way I’ve mostly heard “geek” used does not describe my relatinship to stuff that I love. Fan or enthusiast or dag fits it better.
Colleen said, on 4/2/2007 1:41:00 PM
Oh no Justine - I didn’t see any criticism, it’s just interesting to me how fan used to mean one thing and now seems to mean another and the same for geek.
I will admit I’m a Star Trek fan - but don’t ask me to explain all that Klingon dictionary stuff.
Now those people - they’re what….uber geeks?
You could hurt your head trying to figure all this stuff out you know!!
I was going to rant all over my blog today about the bloody ICC’s idiotic decision to demand that youtube take down all footage from the World Cup. But then I found this excellent rant that says everything I want to say. Here’s a taste of Andrew Miller’s wrath:
Only three days ago it was suggested on this website that the events of the past week might serve as a wake-up call for cricket’s fiscally obsessed powerbrokers. Fat chance. A game run increasingly by lawyers for lawyers, has deemed it necessary to go to war on the very online enthusiasts who can spread the word of a game whose reputation has been dragged through the mincer.
It is an astoundingly short-sighted decision by a ruling body that has once again shown it is completely lacking in a sense of priorities. God knows that cricket could do with some good publicity at present. Only 24 hours ago, the ICC’s Lawyer-in-Chief, Malcolm Speed, was telling Cricinfo how wonderful the match between Australia and South Africa at St Kitts was turning out to be. “Let’s all just watch the cricket,” he suggested when queried about the latest murmurings about Bob Woolmer’s death. Mal, we’d love to. But 75% of your global audience have no means of tuning in.
Yes, that’s right the ICC is so money-grubbing that they sold off the TV rights to cable channels which the majority of cricket lovers in the UK and Australia can’t afford. Cable in those countries is crazy overpriced and—other than covering the cricket—crap. Trust me, I pony up the dosh specifically to watch the cricket. And the cricket is the beginning and the end of what’s good on cable. For most cricket fans youtube is the only way to catch glimpses—and it is only glimpses—of the World Cup.
When will all those moronic beaurocrats wake the hell up? I am so sick of copyright insanity. Colour me extremely bloody ropeable.
I would agree with you if they weren’t providing those videos themselves. I don’t believe it’s free, but I wouldn’t expect it to be—just as I wouldn’t expect to be given free access to the match if I went there in person.
Rebecca said, on 3/28/2007 9:10:00 AM
wells, in u.s. land, we get tons of free sports. you can access certain channels for free if you have an antenna, and they broadcast a lot of local sports, plus some others. the spanish channels show a lot of soccer, and we can get basketball, baseball, golf, football, and probably more. anyone with a tv can watch the superbowl. same for nba finals. we also get the olympics. i’m pretty sure we got at least certain games of the soccer world cup on local channels. of course, we only get the stuff these channels choose to cover. but it’s still way more than any ten minute youtube video, and it’s all free.
lili said, on 3/28/2007 2:25:00 PM
most of the sport is free-to-air in australia, but this year the world cup is only being shown once a week, at some ridiculous hour of the night.
justine, you are so right about pay-tv here. when i was in london last year, i was all ‘it does WHAT?’ ‘it has how many channels?’ ‘what does this red button do?’
here it’s just the shopping channel, and millions and millions of seinfeld reruns and episodes of antiques roadshow. (and sport.) most aussies save their $100 a month (for only 30 channels), and just buy what they want to watch on dvd from the US.
Justine said, on 3/28/2007 2:33:00 PM
And UK cable sucks compared to US cable. It’s all about population base. They are many and we are few.
the super eight games, semi-finals, and final - at least any of those with australia playing in them - are being shown live on free-to-air tv in australia. and it starts at about 9.30pm, which is reasonable.
Justine said, on 3/28/2007 3:20:00 PM
Yeah, but that means you didn’t get to watch Malinga snag four wickets in a row against South Africa and almost put the kybosh on what was going to be an easy win. It’s nice to be able to watch our boys but all the interesting matches so far have not involved them.
Rebecca said, on 3/28/2007 6:18:00 PM
that happens here too, with the olympics (and i’m sure other stuff as well). try watching an event or a sport if it doesn’t feature the u.s., and you’re pretty much out of luck. even some of the usian sports don’t get coverage. my friend is an olympic archer, but we won’t be able to watch her compete in beijing, because they just don’t cover archery.
heh. i thought cable here was overpriced. when i was in eighth grade, my mom got fed up and cut off the cable. i cried. television used to be the center of my life.
Ben Payne said, on 3/29/2007 2:26:00 AM
I agree with Miller, i think it’s utter stupidity that, with the World Cup fast becoming the height of cricketing achievement, so little is being done to promote it.
It’s sad that since Cable tv arrived, the most exciting cricket has not been available…. most of the best series Australia has been involved in in the last ten years have been outside Australia (where we tend to boringly thrash everyone)… and as you say, the most interesting World Cup matches haven’t involved Australia….
I believe in the future administrators will look back and see it as a time when they pretty much threw away potential future fans…
Shashi Tharoor has written a wry op ed piece for the New York Times on the World Cup and how Americans are oblivious to what is preoccupying a billion plus folks at the moment. It ends thus:
In any event, nothing about cricket seems suited to the American national character: its rich complexity, the infinite possibilities that could occur with each delivery of the ball, the dozen different ways of getting out, are all patterned for a society of endless forms and varieties, not of a homogenized McWorld. They are rather like Indian classical music, in which the basic laws are laid down but the performer then improvises gloriously, unshackled by anything so mundane as a written score.
Cricket is better suited to a country like India, where a majority of the population still consults astrologers and believes in the capricious influence of the planets — so they can well appreciate a sport in which, even more than in baseball, an ill-timed cloudburst, a badly prepared pitch, a lost toss of the coin at the start of a match or the sun in the eyes of a fielder can transform the outcome of a game. Even the possibility that five tense, hotly contested, occasionally meandering days of cricketing could still end in a draw seems derived from ancient Indian philosophy, which accepts profoundly that in life the journey is as important as the destination. Not exactly the American Dream.
Ha ha! That makes me giggle. Though to be honest I’m not convinced. Cricket’s popularity in India and elsewhere is an historical accident. If in the early days of cricket in America they’d had some home-grown cricketing heroes demolishing visiting English players and some ambitious entrepreneurs touring the game around the country and bringing in the dosh I reckon things woulda turned out differently.
Cricket’s also bloody popular back home. I’m pretty sure the majority of Australians don’t consult astrologers or believe in the capricious influence of planets (of pollies? yes, but planets? not so much). Or certainly we don’t do it any more than Americans do.
I’m always suspicious of sketches of “national character”. I’m not saying there aren’t difference between nations. I’m often amazed by the extraordinary confidence of the middle and upper classes in the US, especially the white folk. So many of them seem to have this sense of the inevitability of their own success (whether it’s happened yet or not). I’ve never met so many people who are just waiting for their first million, their first broadway show, big movie role, bestselling novel. No question in their mind that it will happen. Even if they’ve never acted or ever written anything longer than a limerick.
But I’ve also met enough Americans who are not like that, and Australians who are, to be wary of typing a whole people. People are complicated and large groups of them even more so and you can never discount regional and class and racial and gender differences.
I also wonder how much of that disturbing confidence is real and how much of it is people saying what they think they’re supposed to be saying.
Back home you’re emphatically not supposed to say stuff like that. If you do you’re a wanker who writes tickets on yourself. Being up yourself is one of the worst things anyone can say about you.
Here that attitude doesn’t seem nearly so wide spread. For instance American English has no home-grown synonyms (that I’ve heard) for “writing tickets” “being stuck up”, “getting above yourself”, “being up yourself”, or “being a wanker”. Mostly because they almost never accuse anyone of that kind of behaviour. Nor do they have the terms “tall poppies” or “cultural cringe”.
So while it might be true that on the whole Americans=confident and Australians=not confident. It could also be that we just know what we are and aren’t allowed to say out loud. If an Aussie says “I’m a genius!” odds are they’re being sarcastic. If a Usian says it not so much. But does the Aussie secretly think they are a genius while the Usian secretly fears they are not?
There are, of course, lots of exceptions to all of this. And things are changing in both countries. I even know Americans who adorecricket.
And, um, did I mention that I have a new book out, Magic’s Child? And, er, it’s not too foul. Really. Well, um, other people think it’s okay. Sorry. Don’t mind me. I’ll get out of your way now . . .
30 Comments on National character, last added: 3/26/2007
when i lived in australia, the main thing that struck me was that, aside from the language differences and a few local food specialties, thre *was* no culture shock. Here I was in another country, and it was so much like my own.
And yes, we do have terms for what you are talking about. “Full of yourself.” “Big headed.” etc.
The thing about America and sports, I think, is that rather than falling in love with the European exports like soccer and rugby and cricket, we invented our own. I don’t know what it says about our national character. Probably is related to the fact that we fought a war to rid ourselves of colonial shackles, and chose to celebrate it by making an active effort to change our language (spelling/accents) and make up new sports (baseball and football) to love rather than the colonial imports.
Then again, we’ve been divided from the old country for much longer. Aussie rules football is pretty popular, yes?
veejane said, on 3/23/2007 7:59:00 AM
So hey, I hear you have a book out…
its rich complexity, the infinite possibilities that could occur with each delivery of the ball, the dozen different ways of getting out
Written like somebody who has never sat through the agony of an 18-inning game in baseball playoffs.
Not to attribute anything to the national character of anybody — though it’s got to be much easier to have a national character when you’re, say, 5 million people than when you’re 300 million, or a billion — but the difference between cricket and baseball seems primarily to be the difference between being eaten by fire-ants over the course of hours and being eaten by a lion in about a minute. Either way, you get chewed up one side and down the other.
Veronica said, on 3/23/2007 8:37:00 AM
I always thought that “being stuck up” was at least as American as it was anything else–we definitely used it on the schoolbus when I was a kid. Also: “conceited,” “a snotto,” “snobby,” “self-aggrandizing jerk” (OK, that last one is the one I use most often) “nose in the air.”
Justine said, on 3/23/2007 8:38:00 AM
Diana: Yeah, I hear Americans say that all the time, but when I came to the US of A I had nothing but culture shock over and over and over again.
Veejane: Cricket really is more complex than baseball with more possible results and complications. I know you’ll find that hard to believe but tis true. Unlike Mr Tharoor, I just don’t happen to think that complexity is necessary to being an awesome sport. Basketball and cycling aren’t as complex as cricket either but I adore them.
Justine said, on 3/23/2007 8:41:00 AM
Diana & Veronica: Yeah, yeah, but it’s not the same. It’s not a defining part of your country’s culture. Australians understand what I’m saying as do anyone who’s lived there for a year or more.
John H said, on 3/23/2007 8:54:00 AM
Well, to echo Diana’s comment, we do use the phrase “being stuck up”, and while we may not use “wanker” to describe someone, we certainly have lots of terms that send the same message (”jackass”, “dickhead”, “asshole” - many more that aren’t so nice…)
As for USian confidence, I think it may be more bravado than anything. But we also celebrate entrepreneurship probably more than any other country. There’s a reason they call it ‘The American Dream’…
Sarah M said, on 3/23/2007 9:04:00 AM
homogenized mcworld. hmm. i’d have to say i disagree. having traveled (by bicycle, mind you) much of the north, south, east, and west of the usa,i’d say there are huge differences–and look at texas. they are just about their own country down there! sometimes the different dialects are almost different languages. so it might be more about tradition than a lack of ability to appreciate the journey or complexity. just my opinion though. i’m sure other usians have different opinions (some even like our president–imagine that!)
congratulations on the book. i’ll be buying it for my libraries–of course.
veejane said, on 3/23/2007 9:17:00 AM
Cricket really is more complex than baseball with more possible results and complications.
Yes, but does it have fire ants? (Probably I should look into this cricket thing, because my favorite nerdy part of baseball is answering questions like, “What happens if the ball gets stuck in somebody’s trousers? Can you still run the bases?” Infinite minutiae are great fun.)
What I think Justine is describing is the unconscious assumption of a myth so powerful it’s not often called into question any more: an awful lot of Americans really believe social class does not exist, and will say so, and will say they’re “middle class” even when they’re in the top 10% of income for the nation.
If everybody is middle class, then people with absolute confidence that they will succeed are just “driven” or “serious” rather than “too big for his britches.”
Of course, that varies within the country, by region and subculture. But anybody who watches television can tell you a hundred stories about upwardly-mobile people, while stories of the downwardly-mobile are relegated to public television and VH1 specials about coke-addled rock stars.
Justine said, on 3/23/2007 9:36:00 AM
Veejane: Thank you! That’s exactly what I was talking about.
You know, I think you’d really enjoy cricket.
David Moles said, on 3/23/2007 12:55:00 PM
justine, nothing on the woolmer murder? I count on you to explicate these cricket-world things to me!
as for social class in america, it’s all rutherford hayes’s fault.
Justine said, on 3/23/2007 1:01:00 PM
The Woolmer murder is just so sad and horrible and the rumours around it so sickening that I really don’t want to go there, ya know? This is the happy blog. And this post is just about as contentious as I care to go.
c said, on 3/23/2007 1:08:00 PM
justine, where do i even start? first of all, i think the main reason we don’t do cricket in the us is that we came up with a faster version early on that’s easier for everyone to play. you can call it a sign of the mcworld, or you can call it lowest common denom, or you can call it populism, or you can call it a sign of a country that’s aware of its diversity. whatever, none are entirely right or wrong.
however, as someone above said, “stuck up” is VERY american. as are “snobbish”, “full of yourself”, “too big for your britches”, “big head”, and “uppity”.
but you gotta keep in mind that the us is very very protestant in its ethic, and vanity is one of the deadly sins. so we feel perfectly comfortable using more formal language to express our disgust at someone’s vanity, since it’s culturally appropriate to accuse someone seriously of vanity.
also: “If an Aussie says “I’m a genius!” odds are they’re being sarcastic. If a Usian says it not so much.” are you freakin’ kidding me? the only difference is that if an aussie makes a mistake they’ll say “i’m a genius” and if an american makes a mistake they’ll say “i’m an idiot.” if an an american does some small, silly thing right, they’ll say “i’m a genius.” that’s also about making fun of yourself, but in a slightly different way.
Skott klebe said, on 3/23/2007 1:21:00 PM
Cricket really is more complex than baseball with more possible results and complications.
In the eighties a pitcher got blown off the mound in the middle of his windup. Balk.
A lot of eccentricities have gotten ironed out of baseball over the years. Baseball originally allowed running substitutions, until a player in the dugout yelled himself into the game in order to catch a pop fly. A player once stole second from first because his manager was ticked he’d stolen second without permission - now against the rules, as well as a bad idea. The infamous pine tar incident, in which the Yankees noticed that George Brett had pine tar too far up his bat, and waited to call the rule on him until it benefited them the most.
A Red Sox minor leaguer once put himself on the disabled list by ironing a shirt while wearing it.
Any plausibility to the notion of sports being associated with a national character should be rendered laughable by the fact that many Americans like all three of baseball, football, and basketball.
I just saw some cricket for the first time on a business trip to London, and I had a question - are the bowlers really only throwing the ball at around 75 mph?
SK
scott w said, on 3/23/2007 1:45:00 PM
are the bowlers really only throwing the ball at around 75 mph?
Spin blowers go even slower than that. Of course, their balls are also rotating at 400RPMs in multiple dimensions, so the speed is irrelevant.
Fast bowlers (a separate species of bowler, not merely a descriptive term) get up to 100MPH (I think 160KPH is the record held by Brett Lee). And remember, they’re not allowed to bend their arms!* So that’s why they have to do a major run-up to get those speeds.
*The rule is way more complicated than that, naturally.
Cheryl said, on 3/23/2007 2:06:00 PM
Having spent a lot of time watching both baseball and cricket I think I can safely say that the rules of baseball are more complicated than those of cricket. Infield fly rule, anyone?
But cricket has interesting tactical complexities. The fact that the ball generally bounces before reaching the batsman opens up a whole new world of possibilities, and the use of the entire park rather than just a diamond means that field placings are much more complicated than baseball.
Justine said, on 3/23/2007 2:19:00 PM
Skott Klebe: Any plausibility to the notion of sports being associated with a national character should be rendered laughable by the fact that many Americans like all three of baseball, football, and basketball.
Or the fact that there are plenty of Americans who hate all three. Just as there are Indians and Australians who hate cricket.
Trying to define a national character is a mug’s game.
John H said, on 3/23/2007 2:23:00 PM
Scott Klebe: I think you mean he stole first from second…
Cheryl: Really, the infield fly rule is pretty simple. If the defense could get multiple outs by dropping the ball on an infield pop-fly, the batter is automatically out and the base runners are not forced to advance. This eliminates the issue where a runner could be doubled off for leaving before the ball is caught, or doubled off for not advancing if the ball is intentionally dropped.
rebecca said, on 3/23/2007 2:30:00 PM
hmm. mcworld. i’m not sure how i feel about tharoor’s assessment. i watch tv hardly ever, so sports and me are pretty much alien species, unless it’s something seasonal (like the olympics. lovvvvve the olympics). when i played soccer, i remember being irritated that no one ever came to our games, but the basketball and volleyball teams always had crowds. soccer is still much better known in the u.s. when compared to cricket. but i’m not sure if it’s lack of interest so much as it is the whole popularity follow-the-crowd sort of thing. everyone and their mother around here watches football and basketball. in high school, vball and basketball were popular because they were the “cool” sports and the cool kids played them. and it could be said that that’s just high school, but i’m inclined to think it’s not. people do what’s popular without bothering to look at anything else. mindless herd mentality.
however, being usian myself, i’d also like to point out that you’re absolutely right about generalizations. most of the people i hang out with on a regular basis are not the type who enjoy the mcworld.
Cheryl said, on 3/23/2007 2:43:00 PM
John: nice job. I’ve found that many Americans don’t have a clue how that rule works. Also your explanation reads very much like one of those cricket jokes about people being in when they are out, and I think may have a few people scratching their heads. But the main point is that there is no circumstance* in cricket where the fielding side could gain an advantage by dropping a catch. In baseball there is, and there has to be a rule about it.
*Well, no general circumstance. There might be specific circumstances to do with keeping an incompetent batsman at the wicket.
scott w said, on 3/23/2007 3:09:00 PM
Cheryl: I think I can safely say that the rules of baseball are more complicated than those of cricket. . . But cricket has interesting tactical complexities . . . the use of the entire park rather than just a diamond means that field placings are much more complicated than baseball.
I don’t know that the complexity of rules per se is the point. What Tharoor is talking about is complexity of tactics and outcomes. From a cricketing perspective, every baseball pitcher is a fast bowler, every delivery a full toss, every hit a straight drive, and every baseball field placing employs slight variations on the same nine positions, whereas Wikipedia lists about 60 positions for cricket. (This isn’t really the best way to describe the difference in fielding, but it gives some idea.)
It’s like comparing chess to checkers. Interesting and unexpected situations can arise in checkers, but all the pieces are the same.
Cheryl said, on 3/23/2007 3:20:00 PM
Scott: I think we are basically in agreement about the tactics. But one of the most common complaints leveled against cricket is that no one can understand the rules, and this is often given as a reason why Americans don’t like it. I think that the rules of baseball are actually more complicated than those of cricket, and any American who can master baseball (as opposed to just watch it) should have no trouble with cricket.
Of course having said that I should also point out that baseball pitches have a great deal more variety than you suggest. Also in cricket it is only ever possible to get one batsman out at time, whereas in baseball you can (and do) get three outs in one play. That adds a considerable amount of tactical complexity.
niki said, on 3/23/2007 7:28:00 PM
actually in cricket you can get two people out at once say a catch and a run out
Diana said, on 3/23/2007 7:32:00 PM
I find that a person who assesses my country as a McWorld void of individual culture or the ability to appreciate “rick complexities” and “infinite possibilities” to be unutterably up himself.
Additionally, I have seen PLENTY of big billboards advertising the cricket world cup (I don’t watch TV, so I haven’t seen it on TV), so I fail to see any of the points the guy is making.
kate c said, on 3/23/2007 9:15:00 PM
i think there is a subtle difference, re the wanker/bighead thing, and i think it is cultural (gross generalisation alert). in australia, the wanker/getting above yourself/blowing your own trumpet thing bears no relationship to your actual ability — it’s purely about your attitude to yourself, and the real crime is taking yourself too seriously. self-deprecation is practically a national law. you can be an actual genius in aus and still be seen as a wanker if you don’t downplay it.
whereas I get the impression for usians, the charge of bighead/snootiness/above yourself means that you act as if you’re better than you are, your ego outrates your abilities. (there’s also the whole snob thing which I suspect is an anti-british class hangover — anti anyone perceived as upper class, whereas in aus it’s more likely to be anti anyone who thinks they have power/authority — subtle difference)
have i just tied myself in knots here??? i think the whole thing is fascinating.
Cheryl said, on 3/24/2007 3:01:00 AM
Niki: sorry, you can’t. The ball becomes dead when a batsman is dismissed so no further play is possible. (Law 23.1)
Veronica said, on 3/24/2007 11:18:00 AM
Hang on, Scott, did you just really compare baseball to checkers? ‘Cause I think I’m gonna have to haul out the snotto bat and wap you with it. Checkers is inarguably simpler than chess; it’s simpler than practically any game but tic-tac-toe. But of course you’re gonna miss the complexities of baseball if you use the guidelines of another game to try and assess it. I mean, I gotta say, I’ve been known to characterize basketball as “a bunch of pituitary cases galumphing down to one side of the court, throwing a ball through a net, and then galumphing over to the over side of the court, and throwing the ball through a different net,” but that’s probably because I use my baseball eyes to look at basketball. (Actually, I try not to look at basketball in any way whatsoever, but I guess that’s irrelevant.)
But I think that part of the disjunction is between the mass-produced American culture that gets sold to/imposed on the rest of the world, and the actual cultures that play out in different parts of the US. Like, on the one hand, Muhammed Ali said “It ain’t braggin’ if it’s true,” which seems to fit in with the idea of the US valorizing a kind of arrogance, but that kind of interpretation doesn’t take into account the place of trash-talking in specifically African-American culture, and how hated Ali was by much of white America for his mouthing off. Just an example that springs into my mind. And what about the difference between being a genuinely self-aggrandizing prick, and being good-natured showboater who’s more or less in on the joke?
But all that is, as you say, Justine, why national character stuff is a mug’s game.
Kevin Wignall said, on 3/25/2007 6:17:00 AM
Coming to this late because I’m the middle of writing…
First, I think it’s worth remembering that the very American John Paul Getty came to love cricket and found great solace in it. I think it’s similar to baseball in that it has a mythic quality stretching beyond the game itself. But I do think it’s wrong to suggest that Australia likes cricket because it “lost its shackles” later than the US. The interesting thing about the cricketing world is that we all share certain things about the game but each country also brings a unique flavour to it.
One other thing. It’s always said that Americans have no sense of irony, and yet here in the UK, Seinfeld was shown on a minority channel very late at night. That’s ironic.
But some generalizations stick, and coming from the most self-deprecating nation on earth, I’d have to say that it’s actually born out of supreme confidence. That’s why the English (and Australians) are suspicious of people who keep telling you how good they are - our attitude is that if you were really that good you wouldn’t feel the need to keep telling everyone.
Finally, electifying first round game between Aus and S Africa yesterday. Aus have got to be looking good. Meanwhile, England would have to shape up dramatically and stop Freddie falling off the pedalo again - and sadly, I’m not being self-depracating on this occasion.
For the next month, there’s an ad for Magic’s Child up on Locus online. Tis my very first one and I’m dead excited. Ordinarily, I can’t stand ads but somehow it’s different when it’s an ad for one of my books. That makes me want to pat it and sing it songs. Lovely, lovely ad. Designed by the fabulous Courtney Wood who also made those beautiful screensavers which you can now download from the links in the sidebar.
There is now a cover for the Science Fiction Book Club’s 3-in-1 version of my trilogy. It’s called The Magic or of Reason.
In other vainglorious news, the Hathor Legacy likesDaughters of Earth, describing it as the “perfect marriage of fantastic stories and excellent critical analysis”. Yay! That’s what I was going for.
And to stop skiting for a second, wouldn’t it be great if this happened? An ODI series between India and Australia right here in NYC? I could bring all my USian friends what want to learn about the noble game and convert them to the glories of cricket in their own country. Bliss!
Also this could be the day Magic’s Child is released into the wild. i await reports. Remember there is a prize for the first person to send me photographic evidence that my latest book exists and it may not be as crappy as I said.
12 Comments on My very first online ad & other matters, last added: 3/22/2007
I, like, totally want the 3-IN-1 version. Seems like it might be a rather excellent way to read the trilogy, actually.
Congratulations!
Of course, that’s not gonna stop me from going out today and trying to find a nice, warm copy of Book 3. Its out there, somewhere, waiting to be found.
The hunt is on!
D
Adam Rakunas said, on 3/22/2007 9:58:00 AM
Hi, Justine. Long time reader, first time poster. Yay for the ad; are you thinking about putting up more on BlogAds or through Google’s ad network?
Dawn said, on 3/22/2007 10:02:00 AM
I have to work all day today, but I totally plan on going to Borders and looking for after I get off!!
John H said, on 3/22/2007 12:02:00 PM
Looks like The Magic of Reason to me (not or)…
John H said, on 3/22/2007 12:11:00 PM
As for ODI in New York, I don’t know how feasible that would be. Would an American football field be wide enough? And do they play cricket on artificial turf?
jonathan said, on 3/22/2007 1:51:00 PM
that article is from back in january. they subsequently decided to play the games in ireland, just before india start a summer season against england. this isn’t the first time the extremely lucrative indian tv market has led to a one-of series, and i doubt it’ll be the last.
marrije said, on 3/22/2007 2:35:00 PM
I must be quite mad, since I’ve been checking my Amazon account a number of times yesterday and today to see whether they have changed the status of my Magic’s Child order to ’shipping soon, you can’t add anything to this lot any more’.
[checks again]
nope. not yet.
[kicks amazon. but gently, because we don’t want to tick it off]
Justine said, on 3/22/2007 2:38:00 PM
Thanks for all the kind thoughts! I’ve yet to see Magic’s Child in a shop, but. I’m trying not to be alarmed given that some give the pub date as Friday . . .
Adam Rakunas: Yay for the ad; are you thinking about putting up more on BlogAds or through Google’s ad network?
I’m not in charge of the ads. That’s down to Penguin. I’d rather spend my money on good food and wine
And thanks for posting!
John H: As for ODI in New York, I don’t know how feasible that would be.
I’m too lazy to google, but I’m pretty sure there’s been an odi in North America. Toronto, maybe? Dunno how they did it but I’m pretty sure it was on fake grass.
Jonathan: All power to the Indian tv market!
Cheryl said, on 3/22/2007 3:04:00 PM
There are cricket pitches in Toronto, dear. BC is apparently a cricket hot bed, but Toronto is the other major center in Canada.
But playing in NYC is plain daft. The Bay Area is stuffed full of cricket fans (most of them India supporters). We’d provide a large and knowledgeable crowd. I mean, where is Willow TV headquartered?
Little Willow said, on 3/22/2007 5:25:00 PM
WOOT!
da said, on 3/22/2007 7:16:00 PM
great add and cover. just loved the book (will write more)
in 1992 took three canadian colleagues to see the West Indies defeat a world 11 at toronto skydome (now rogers centre). closed roof and artificial turf. of course there were no ausies in the world 11.
hipwritermama said, on 3/22/2007 8:26:00 PM
congrats. i haven’t seen your book yet, but will certainly keep an eye out.
Every world cup it seems there’s a debate about whether allowing in the so-called minnows of the game is a good idea or not. Because every world cup there are 200-plus run victories as Bermuda or Scotland or whoever are bowled out for less than a hundred by Australia or India or whoever.
It’s happened again this year. Herschelle Gibbs even smashed a world record 36 off an over against the Netherlands. For those whose maths is as poor as mine that’s a six off every single ball. No one had ever it done it internationally before, not in ODIs and not in test cricket.
The argument against the inclusion of minnows is that they help create crazy world records like that cause they’re just not up to snuff. “What’s the point of such an uneven competition?” they ask. And blah blah blah.
To which my response is, “Please!” One of the best ways to improve at anything is to learn from people who are better and more experienced than you are. Letting the minnows play with the top cricketing nations means that they will get oodles of practice against the best players in the world. As they improve they’ll create more interest in cricket back home and more potential cricket players and thus the game will grow and prosper throughout the world.
And they do get better.
As evidence I present Exhibits A & B: Bangladesh and Ireland.
The minnows sometimes upset the giants. Bangladesh just beat India in the first round. In the past few years they’ve racked up victories against a number of top teams including Australia. They are no longer as minnowy as they once were. I don’t think they’re a shot at the world cup (though how cool would that be?) but they’re certainly going to give a number of teams a testing time. Yay, Bangladesh!
First Ireland tied with Zimbabwe in their opening match and then in their second they beat Pakistan! Bowling them out for a pathetic 132 in the 45th over and following that up with a gritty batting display against some awesome bowling (and even better appealing—give Mr Sami an Oscar! He’s up there with Our Shane). And I’m so relieved the bad light and rain did not reduce things to a Duckworth-Lewis decision. Bravo to Ireland. They have several players I reckon England* would love to have on their side.
Back in the olden days Sri Lanka and New Zealand were minnows; now they are not. They got that way by being included in world-class competition. I really don’t understand how anyone could argue against minnow inclusion. Me, I’m hoping a US of A team will qualify for the next world cup.
The superhero character will be known as “Sachin The Master Blaster” for comic books, animation and games.
Excuse me? Sachin is one of the finest, but there is only one Master Blaster and his name is Viv Richards.
The article also claims that Sachin is the second greatest batsman of all time. Nuh uh. Not on his own he isn’t. I don’t care what Wisden says. There are a lot of other very fine batsmen in the running for that spot. Other than Sir Viv, there’s Brian Lara, Garfield Sobers, Sunil Gavaskar, and Ricky Ponting. But don’t ask me to pick a best out of that lot. I can’t. They’re all amazing. And besides comparisons are odious.
*Bummer about that loss to New Zealand, eh?
10 Comments on Slaughter of the Minnow-cents + Sachin, last added: 4/8/2007
The Warner Park ground — where Australia, South Africa, Netherlands and Scotland are playing their group matches — appears to be tiny. It’s not just the minnow factor at work here. Australia v. South Africa next Saturday could see a ridiculously high total score because of that.
I’m with you on this issue, though — the weaker teams deserve their chance to play with the best in the world and sometimes they cause upsets. It’s good fun. So we have entertainment in the group stage, followed by a more serious group of 8 in the second stage.
Justine said, on 3/17/2007 6:41:00 PM
Oh, sure, it does seem to produce an awful lot of boundaries!
I reckon on the basis of a win and a tie Ireland is almost definitely going to be in the Super Eights. Pakistan lost to the Windies and to Ireland so they’re out of it. Just depends on how Zimbabwe does against the Windies and Pakistan. I really hope the Windies beat them. Sucks when the host team doesn’t at least make it through to the second round, ya know?
Go Ireland!
Dawn said, on 3/17/2007 9:59:00 PM
I feel very American right now. I don’t know an incredible amount about American sports in general, and now I feel incredibly lost! Oh well.
Ben Payne said, on 3/17/2007 11:11:00 PM
I’m with you on the minnows… people who complain about the minnows are just sour apples if you ask me!
I can still remember people saying Sri Lanka shouldn’t be playing the big teams… now look where they are… I think Bangladesh will be up there soon too… Zimbabwe of course didn’t have the same success, but when you consider they’ve lost maybe a whole team-worth of players to the political situation there…
Darren said, on 3/18/2007 3:44:00 AM
Go Ireland! Worth making the point, though, that Sir Garfield Sobers has hit 36 off an over before, but he did it in county cricket (I think) rather than in an international. Still, awesome performance from Herchelle Gibbs - let’s hope he makes up for it with a duck against the Aussies!
veejane said, on 3/18/2007 6:26:00 AM
Baseball calls these uneven games “laughers,” because 22-0 (ha ha Yankees at home vs. Cleveland, 3 years ago) is an hilarious score. And we love the fact that it can happen to anybody.
Unless it happens to your team, and then it’s a cry-er.
It is a great leveller of Fate that even the crappiest team can have one really good day and whale the tar out of the division leader. And then go back to being crappy the next day.
Justine said, on 3/18/2007 6:38:00 AM
Hey, I just realised Ireland beat Pakistan (and knocked them out of the world cup) on St Patrick’s Day. How excellent is that?
Darren: I did say never done in an ODI or Test match. There are all sorts of weird records in domestic cricket. But, yes, Gary Sobers=god.
Veejane: Laughers, eh? I like that. ODIs (which are a shorter form of the game) are much more open to unexpected results than test cricket. Cause as you say “it is a great leveller of Fate that even the crappiest team can have one really good day”.
That’s why it’s a lot harder for the minnows to do well at test cricket. One good day’s not out of reach, but four or five good days in a row? That’s much trickier.
Cheryl said, on 3/18/2007 8:52:00 AM
Hmm, I thought I posted a comment this morning. Let’s try again.
Cheryl said, on 3/18/2007 8:56:00 AM
OK, that worked, so…
Yay Bangladesh! I rather liked the supporters who had a banner reading “2011 World Champions”. Given how young their side is, that might just be realistic.
6s records: Gary Sobers for Northants against Glamorgan (off a bowler called Malcolm Nash - presumably no relation to Darren). The only other one in a first class game was Ravi Shastri in an Indian regional match.
And back to minnows, I suspect that Kenya might once again prove the best of them. Keep an eye on the England-Kenya match, my Aussie friends, and try not to die laughing.
1. I have been accused in certain circles (okay, in certain emails) of deliberately not mentioning the English win in the recent ODIs against Australia in New Zealand. So here you go, you whingeing poms:
Yay, England for finally stringing three wins in a row! Way to peak at the right time. Yes, you are now contenders for the World Cup next month. Go forth and be happy!
It’s still only One-day cricket, but.
2. I’ve also been meaning to remonstrate with one Maureen Johnson who has let down her fellow pro writers by revealing one of the most closely guarded secrets of our trade. First it was Matthew Cheney, and now Maureen. When is this going to stop, people? Are you going to start selling your secret decoder rings to the punters? I hope you remember the sacred oathes you swore. Don’t forget that there will be repercussions!
3. I’ve also been asked why I think it’s okay to hurt Maureen Dowd’s feelings when I’m so precious about novelists’ feelings. To which I can only respond: Well, der. I am a novelist. Of course I’m more worried about our feelings. Besides it’s well known that columnists are made of much sterner stuff than thin-skinned novelists. They are mocked all the time and are well used to it. But every time a novelist is mocked a little piece of the world’s communal imagination disappears in a tiny puff of smoke. It’s on your own heads if you mock us.
The one exception is John Scalzi who has managed to maintain the thick hide of a columnist despite becoming a novelist. You can mock him as much as you want. He loves it!
4. Over in the magical land of livejournal, there’s some reallyfascinatingdiscussions going on about urban fantasy and the demonisation of “normal”. I have much to say on this subject and am struggling to get them together in a way that makes sense to anyone but me. But they involve lots of thoughts about Pan’s Labyrinth and fairy tales.
5. I have discovered a good thing about the cold. When you fall over in the street, you’re so padded with gloves and coats and scarves and etc etc, that it doesn’t hurt!
6. Feel free to share some matters you consider important.
8 Comments on Important matters, last added: 2/16/2007
does anyone other than me consider it important to know exactly where in the world Justine Larbalestier is for any given post?
one goes off into the narrow world of academic hiring searches, in which land no light shines, and from which it is hard to keep up with one’s favorite blogs,
only to return and discover that JL is in another part of the world AGAIN!
Shouldn’t there be some sort of emoticon that starts off or maybe finishes up posts to let one know
where is the world is Justine?
pulling out the maps, the tickets, and the passports,
yours, Katie
Kevin Wignall said, on 2/13/2007 6:44:00 PM
For the record, I wish to make clear that I didn’t gloat (okay, a little, but within reason) and I was also magnanimous in my response to our Ashes trouncing. And I’m sure even you’d admit that it’ll make things much more interesting if England are on form in March.
And how did you fall over, Justine? Not drowning your sorrows, I hope?
I am in New York City. It is snowing. And, even though I am against cold, I must admit that it is really pretty. I was even outside walking around in it and not too appalled. It is better to be inside though and looking out.
So, yes, Rebecca and Penni, I went outside, but only so that I wouldn’t starve to death.
Kevin: I fell over because I am unco. I can not blame it on ice or any other winter thing or the dastardly poms winning. Also I was stone cold sober. It was just my inability to walk. Sigh.
Rebecca said, on 2/14/2007 3:33:00 AM
it is nearly down to freezing here. i think i’m going to die of shock. i mean, it’s almost cold enough to be snowing down here. that is so not right.
Scott just sent me this because we both love cricket and monkeys*. It is the personification of our love. It makes me so happy!
Though I gotta say that’s a pretty suspicious looking bowling action. And why is the umpire lying on the ground? Because the monkey is totally using body line? Check it: the monkey’s aiming at their heads! Or perhaps because the monkey has used six different balls? That’s gotta be worse than ball tampering, right? Bad cheating monkey!
*He found it here, but I’d love to know the original source.
I am still working on the part where wildebeest — cinghiale? peccaries? — can get together a whole team for cricket.
Also, they are competing in the nude.
Kevin Wignall said, on 2/11/2007 8:16:00 PM
His bowling action might look suspect now but until the late nineteenth century the bowler wasn’t allowed to raise his arm above shoulder height, though throwing still wasn’t allowed.
On the other hand, there’s some obvious tampering going on and he’s using more than one ball!
Justine said, on 2/11/2007 11:35:00 PM
Veejane: naked cricket has a long and honourable tradition. You’re telling me there’s no naked baseball?
Kevin: You reckon it’s that old? I was thinking it was from the twenties or thirties. Plus he’s hurling with one hand while he has another ball in the other. That ain’t right.
David Moles said, on 2/12/2007 4:55:00 AM
Also, I believe that is an ape.
Justine said, on 2/12/2007 11:20:00 AM
Broad strokes, Mr Moles, broad strokes.
veejane said, on 2/12/2007 11:48:00 AM
You’re telling me there’s no naked baseball?
Baseball involves 90 m.p.h. balls being thrown at men’s… balls. So, even if he is not wearing pants, he is likely to wear armor for the squishy regions of his body.
Although I would die of laughter to see jockstraps-only baseball, I think that if you are going to involve jockstraps you basically have to involve buttless chaps.
Which I would totally endorse!!
Justine said, on 2/12/2007 11:53:00 AM
The balls fly not much slower in cricket, you know. Apparently cricketers are made of sturdier stuff than baseballers.
But, yes, the box is the first piece of cricket that every male cricketer puts on.
I can think of few cricketers I would enjoy seeing in bumless chaps. *Shudders*
klages said, on 2/12/2007 12:23:00 PM
I don’t know where it’s from, but I found you someone who does:
Why thank you, Lady Klages! According to your source “The Monkey Cricketer” is “A story, from a 1931 story paper”. Thus confirmation that it’s from when I said it was (the 1920s or 1930s).
So, there, Kevin! The action is entirely illegal.
kevin wignall said, on 2/12/2007 5:36:00 PM
So you’re telling me it’s an australian monkey…
jokes aside, what’s really funny is that the pic was clearly lifted from somewhere else and just had the cricket tag attached to it!
For ages people have been telling me that I have to see Lagaan. Well, now I have. And everyone’s right. It is the best movie of all time. No contest.
It has everything that should be in a movie: cricket, the British are the baddies, more cricket, dancing, singing, a love triangle, and more cricket. Lagaan is perfect. (Well, it could have been longer with a wee bit more cricket and a few more songs, but other than that—perfect.)
At least seventy minutes of the movie is a cricket match. How did that make any sense to American viewers? Cause most of the folks who’ve recommended it have been yanquis who know nothing about the noble game. How did you keep track of the balls and overs? How did you even realise
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
that Bhuvan wasn’t out at the end cause the evil bastard captain had stepped over the boundary when he took the catch?
Also what was it like not getting all the cool little cricket history references?
I mean the actor cast as the big baddie captain even looks like Douglas Jardine (or at least he looks like Hugo Weaving playing Douglas Jardine in Bodyline—same thing). And he certainly behaves like Douglas Jardine. Right down to stretching the ethical limits of the game to breaking point. And then there was the fabulous homage to Baloo Palwankar with the untouchable spinner. Fabulous stuff.
Sigh. And now I believe I will watch it again.
9 Comments on Best movie of all time, last added: 2/11/2007
Because Lagaan is structured as a beginner’s lesson in cricket. You learn as you watch, and by the end you know enough to understand the end.
It’s even more fun if you know something about cricket before you go in (I did, so did Steven — has he hooked up with you as a fellow cricket fan yet?), but trust me, it also works brilliantly if you don’t know a thing about cricket before you begin. I always recommend Lagaan to my friends who want to learn more about the game. There is no better primer.
John H said, on 2/6/2007 10:43:00 AM
Not all Yanquis are self-centered and myopic - some of us have even been abroad!
My uncle was a cricket umpire for two decades and the park across the street from my grandparents’ house is host to cricket matches throughout the summer.
Rebecca said, on 2/6/2007 11:17:00 AM
lagaan is the reason i even know what cricket is. all my cricket knowledge (prior to reading your blog, of course) came from that movie. my mom loves indian culture, so she checked it out from the video store, and then my brother and i got it for her for mother’s day. my mom thinks the cricket segment is a bit long, though. crazy americans.
Rebecca said, on 2/6/2007 11:19:00 AM
ya’ll spell “yankees” weird.
Justine said, on 2/6/2007 11:58:00 AM
Lori S: Really? Cause it sure didn’t seem like a primer to me. I’m extremely impressed by anyone who could work out the rules from watching Lagaan.
John H: Yours is a very unusal experience. All the yanquis who recommended the film to me said they knew nothing about cricket, but that it didn’t matter to their enjoyment of the film.
Rebecca: That’s the Spanish spelling, you ignorant yanqui
John H said, on 2/6/2007 1:24:00 PM
I should have mentioned that my uncle was a Scotsman and my grandparents lived just outside Cambridge…
janet said, on 2/7/2007 12:07:00 AM
The significance of the catch at the end is clear from context.
I presume that there’s a whole coterie of English actors in Bollywood who specialize in playing evil colonials.
Justine said, on 2/7/2007 12:20:00 AM
John H: That’s cheating! Though most Scotts I’ve known have been pretty sneering about that English game, cricket.
Janet: Maybe, but everyone in Lagaan was cast in England. The actor who places Elizabeth is a regular on the L-Word.
Malcolm said, on 2/11/2007 9:21:00 PM
Surely those Americans who truly know their sports history will be up to speed with the famous Canadian-USA matches from the mid-19th century (the oldest international cricket fixture on record). See, for example, http://cricketclub.org/can_usa.html for one of the scorecard. Very low scores; apparently it was a bowler’s game in those days. Yeah, okay, maybe they won’t remember those days.
The wikipedia article on the US cricket team mentions that it John Adams used cricket clubs as a justification for calling the leader of the new US nation “president”, too.
“The way I look at cricket, you do everything possible to win. Some people like the verbal side of the game, some don’t, but you just get one with what your job. I take what Vincent is saying as a backhanded compliment.”
Hayden, Clark’s Australian teammate, was equally indignant.
“If he considers that to be the case, I’m not unhappy about it, to be honest,” Hayden said. “It’s a great clash between New Zealand and Australia and long may it continue. It doesn’t matter what sport — we could be playing kick a cockroach from here to the wall and we’d want to be competitive.”
You know last time I looked “indignant” meant “cranky”, “pissed off”, “ropeable”. It did not mean “bemused”.
Talk about sloppy journalism of the Let’s-try-to-manufacture-controversy-even-if-the-quotes-don’t-fit variety. That or the journo truly doesn’t know what “indignant” means. Well, whoever wrote that, I am indignant at your use of the word indignant.
Though maybe they were just being a smartarse? Cause Hayden is just as indignant as Clarke, i.e. not at all.
4 Comments on That word does not mean what you think it means, last added: 2/3/2007
Or perhaps the writer was using the word to describe the manner in which the players responded to the question. It’s quite possible that the players were giving a pissy answer that doesn’t read that way…
Justine said, on 1/31/2007 12:55:00 PM
But there ain’t nothing in the article to support that, which still means it’s sloppy. Also Clarke always comes across as the most affable bloke alive.
John H said, on 1/31/2007 1:07:00 PM
True…
Rose said, on 1/31/2007 11:18:00 PM
Yeh, except when Clarke’s linked to Bingle… then the affability starts waning.
I think the whole article, shocking literary skills included, is complete rubbish. To me, that kiwi Vincent seems to be simply jealous of Australia’s winning streak and fierce competitive nature. I’d say he’s ‘indignant’ about forever losing to a better side. He can’t win on the field, so he’s trying to score points off it by slinging off verbally. No respect.
Have you heard the song Reasons Why by Nickel Creek?
No. Please to point me to a link where I may listen.
Roger asks:
Your favourite cricketers, m’dear, and why. Whence the Keith Miller obsession?
Still living: Shoab Akhtar, Makhaya Ntini, Daniel Vettori, Shane Warne and Andrew Symonds.
Because they entertain me.
I have explained my Keith Miller infatuation here. Basically, I think he was a dropdead spunk plus he generated ace anecdotes. And there was the whole cricket thing too.
Jenny D asks that I say something about
the fiction of Ellen Kushner
It is completely wonderful in every way and you should all read her!
Jenny D also ask that I detail
some of your more unfortunate past fashion choices–with pictures!
And I refuse and threaten dire consequences to anyone who posts such photos of me ever.
Chris McLaren asks for
Convention horror stories and other juicy gossip.
This too I refuse. What happens at a convention stays at the convention.
Simon Sherlock would
like to see you write about why the England cricket team is far, far better than the Australian one (even though they choose not to show it)
I did say I would lie for you all, but it turns out that this I just can’t do. Especially after yesterday’s performance against New Zealand.
All I can say is that I’m sure they’re much better at enduring cold wet weather than the Australian cricket team and that is not a skill to be sniffed at.
A lurker wants to know
Your thoughts on harry potter. and jkrowling. just curious.
I really enjoy the books though have found the last few a tad too long. I wish they’d been a bit tighter edited. Am really looking forward to the next one.
I worship J. K. Rowling. Without her my career wouldn’t be possible. All children’s and YA writers owe her hugely. Thank you for everything, J. K.!
Robyn Hook would
like to hear about your jeans shopping expedition with Ron!
Twas fabulous. All things done with Ron are a million times more fabulous than they otherwise would be. Ron is a goddess. I can no longer go shopping with anyone else. This is a bit of a problem given that I only see him once or twice a year . . . I’m reduced to wearing rags!
Let me rephrase, how did you first come across the esteeemed Keith Miller? I suspect you are somewhat younger than he. I’d wager you weren’t born until after his cricket career was over.
Where am I today? I wish that I knew
‘Cause looking around there’s no sign of you
I don’t remember one jump or one leap
Just quiet steps away from your lead
I’m holding my heart out but clutching it too
Feeling this short of a love that we once knew
I’m calling this home when it’s not even close
Playing the role with nerves left exposed
Standing on a darkened stage, stumbling through the lines
Others have excuses, but I have my reasons why
We get distracted by dreams of our own
But nobody’s happy while feeling alone
And knowing how hard it hurts when we fall
We lean another ladder against the wrong wall
And climb high to the highest rung, to shake fists at the sky
While others have excuses, I have my reasons why
[Bridge:]
With so much deception it’s hard not to wander away
It’s hard not to wander away
It’s hard not to wander away
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ez said, on 1/21/2007 5:36:00 PM
A music critic in my favourite newspaper said something about Brett’s lyrics being “hilariously bad”. Your thoughts?
Have a lovely day!
Justine said, on 1/21/2007 5:47:00 PM
Anon: It’s not that funny!
Ez: I’ve heard so much worse. For a cheesy pop song it’s just fine. Plus I love Bollywood numbers it’s heaps better than if it were a la some lame US boy group or something.
I was disappointed that Brett doesn’t do much Bollywood style dancing. Can never have too much Bollywood dancing.
I’ve been just a few days away from finishing the first draft of the great Australian Elvis mangosteen monkey knife-fighting cricket fairy novel for weeks and weeks. What is it with that? I feel like there’s someone up ahead with my ending, who every time I get close enough to touch it, madly sprints away.
Bloody bastard!* Stop it!
I can’t tell you how much I’m looking forward to finishing this draft. I have such plans for the rewrites! Rewriting is so much funner. You can’t really get the monkey-knife-fighting scenes right until you’ve gone over them many times adding zeppelins and fireworks.
I’m also a bit cranky cause this was going to be my shortest novel ever, but it keeps growing. Grrr.
Do any of youse ever have the receding-into-the-distance ending problem? What do you do about it?
*Just rewatched Bodyline. My favourite bit is when Douglas Jardine (evil captain of the English team) goes to the Australian dressing room to demand an apology for being called a bastard. The captain turns to his men and asks, “Which one of you bastards called this bastard a bastard?” Jardine stalks off in high Pommy dugeon. Tee hee!
i don’t know if it’s going to be your shortest novel ever, but it sounds like your funnest novel ever. i’ve really enjoyed the ‘reason’ novels, but this sounds like something really cool and special and different. worth the extra wordage.
Diana said, on 1/7/2007 6:28:00 PM
My novels always ended exactly where I wanted them to, but sometimes they forced me on little detours along the way, thereby making the trip longer, even if the end is still the end.
and i’m glad the mangosteens are back in, though you may want to keep an eye out for those zeppelins. it’s apparently contagious.
best line of the day “high pommy dudgeon.”
cherie priest said, on 1/7/2007 6:50:00 PM
Oh ye gawds yes. For example — I first assumed that Wings to the Kingdom would be maybe 95,000 words. I assumed this up until oh, say, the end of its first draft … which turned out to be almost 125,000 words long. I pared it back down to 110 or so (I think?), but that was one of the most frustrating things ever to write. It just. Wouldn’t. END.
Ez said, on 1/7/2007 6:59:00 PM
Speaking of cricket, what are your thoughts on 20-20?
I seem to have the opposite problem - I struggle to get even 70,000 words. And I have Irish blood - I should be a natural gobshite. *waves fist angrily*
Have a lovely day!
Delia said, on 1/7/2007 7:59:00 PM
Yes, as a matter of fact, I do have a problem with the incredible receding ending. Or at least it’s something that happens to me–I’ve learned, that it’s just the way it is, sometimes, and I might as well just accept it.
You have to start with more clay than you end up with, after all, to make a statue.
jonathan said, on 1/8/2007 12:06:00 AM
ez, i could guess what justine’s pov on 20/20 might be. basically, it’s not cricket. not really. there is one true form of cricket. it involves the wearing of white clothing, takes five days to play, and the ideal platform for the australian team to show everyone else how far they have to go in order to be competitive. the other stuff, as much fun as it might be, ain’t cricket. right?
E. Lockhart said, on 1/8/2007 8:46:00 AM
yes, I have that problem.
the brideshead revisited/focault/skull and bones book would be, I thought 40,000 — at 38,000 I thought — I’m nearly done! but it was 60,000, all of it ending.
Rebecca said, on 1/8/2007 10:14:00 PM
for me, it’s not so much the reaching the ending as having an ending in the first place that’s the problem. i hate writing endings, so mostly i have the whole story down except for the ending. it tends to get me in a bit of trouble.
Justine said, on 1/8/2007 11:53:00 PM
It’s a mighty solace to me to hear that I’m not the only one! Thanks!
Ez: I’m not quite as old-school as Jonathan indicates. I tend to fine ODIs a bit boring and predictable. But I’m fond of Twenty20. Especially when it’s between reasonably evenly matched teams. It can be mighty unpredictable. But, yes, test cricket is the very bestest form of cricket. Always was always will be.
Ralph Charlton said, on 3/7/2007 11:40:00 PM
Just a few days away from finishing the first draft of the great Australian Elvis mangosteen monkey knife-fighting cricket fairy novel for weeks and weeks.The more interesting topics on marshal arts and knife fighting can be found in our site knife fighting
The last day of this year’s Ashes series didn’t even amount to two hours of play, but it sure did sum up the series. Australia bowled well; England crumbled. Didn’t run except when Andrew Symonds was holding the ball ready to run them out. Then Langer and Hayden got the handful of runs necessary for the 5-0 sweep. It took five overs longer than I thought it would on account of Harmison finally decided to bowl some scorchers. But then it was done.
And for years I will have fun telling folks that I was there to see Langer, McGrath and Warne say goodbye to cricket. The way I’ve already been able to skite about being there to watch Steve Waugh get his in-your-eyes-selectors century off the last ball of the third day back in 2003.
Five-nil. Only the second time in the history of the more century-old contest. Oops.
I don’t see England recovering any time soon. But it would be nice if they did. I’ve said it many times before but we need at least five strong test sides: Australia, England, India, South Africa, and the West Indies. And I would love for it to be eight with New Zealand, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. But right now not one of them is even close to being able to beat Australia.
Maybe the next ten years will show improvements all over. That would be lovely. I’m hopeful that enough Australian talent has been poached to help build up sides all over the world. Yep, that’s right cricket is now our Imperial export. In your eye, Douglas Jardine.
Maybe the next Warne will be from Kenya or Zimbabwe and they’ll have support from the rest of the team and from their bureaucrat and they’ll reshape the face of cricket, not just in their country, but throughout the world. Why not, eh?
(Just as long as Australia stays strong!)
4 Comments on Goodbye Warne, McGrath and Langer, last added: 1/26/2007
Hearing the English team talk is quite depressing. They repeatedly use phrases like “we’re a young team” and “failed in key moments” and “Australia played well” all of which are true, but won’t change anything. Not convinced the ECB review will help either.
There was talk on the news this morning about trying to use Warne as a coach/consultant seeing as he’ll be playing for Hampshire for two more years. Seems a shame that they don’t think to ask our own ex-players for help, like Boycott or Botham.
Justine said, on 1/6/2007 4:22:00 PM
I am a little bit suspicious about using big name cricketers as coaches et al. Especially those who’ve never proven themselves as teachers. Most of the really successful coaches weren’t huge names during their own careers. Troy Cooley’s a good example. Why on Earth did you lot let him go?
We have no idea if Botham, Boycott or Warne would be any good. I have huge doubts about Botham given his record as a captain. And Boycott is not exactly possessed of a wide range of people skills . . . I don’t see Warne becoming a coach he’s got a seat waiting for him at channel nine.
James said, on 1/6/2007 4:44:00 PM
Well, yes point taken. I wasn’t really thinking about their man management skills. But surely any opinions of ex-players could provide *something* useful? There are ex-Aussie players helping the team aren’t there?
As for Cooley? Yes, what were the ECB thinking? (Probably nothing) They should have offered him more money and an MBE.
Oh well…
Justine said, on 1/6/2007 4:50:00 PM
You people and your MBEs! I’m waiting for someone to get one for excellence in farting.
From over here it looks like one of the problems you have is a few too many opinions from the ex-players . . .
Today I will share with you one of the many reasons I love cricket. This is more for me than for you, because I am currently very cranky with cricket—specifically with the Australian and English cricket teams—and I need to remind myself of the love.
Australia because they got out way too early: Warne? Gilchrist? I’m looking at you! Where were your centuries?
And England because they crumbled and lost five wickets. Yet a-bloody-gain.
I would like to remind you both that I have tickets for tomorrow’s play and right now I’m not seeing it go past lunch. A pox on both your houses.
I am also pretty dirty on the weather. What? You can rain all night? But barely disturb the cricket? Curse you!
But here’s my latest reason for loving cricket:
Stygian gloom has its own entry in Leigh & Woodhouse’s Cricket Glossary:
Stygian gloom: “The middle half of this game, and the end, was played out in gloom so Stygian Dickie Bird would have been reaching for the smelling-salts and a handy flashlight.” A topos for reporting on bad light at Headingley and in Hades.
5 Comments on Stygian gloom, last added: 1/26/2007
said it in email, and i’ll say it here: i understand everything that’s driving you crazy, but you get to *be there* for the closing of the curtains, the end of it all. it’ll be extraordinary, like a warnie ton, but even better.
jonathan said, on 1/4/2007 9:51:00 PM
sorry it didn’t go longer, but i envy you having been there. what a moment! something to tell the grandkids about definitely.
and now, it’s on to 20/20 on tuesday and the odis on friday. i know you prefer tests - i agree - but it’s all we’ve got for 11 months (!!) , so we might as well enjoy it.
It’s been another good year for me professionally and I will now skite about it: My second and third books, Magic Lessons and Daughters of Earth, were both published to some very nice reviews and reader responses. The whole Magic or Madness trilogy sold to Editora Record in Brazil, Magic or Madness and Magic Lessons sold to Mondadori in Italy, while Magic Lessons and Magic’s Chld sold to Amarin in Thailand. And then there was the recent sale of the trilogy to the Science Fiction Book Club for a 3-in-1. Not to mention Magic Lessons being on the shortlist for the Aurealis.
It was a great year for Scott who hit the New York Times bestseller list not once, not twice, but three times! Woo hoo! Twice for Specials and once for Pretties. Also my friends Yvette Christiansë (Unconfessed), Kate Crawford (Adult Themes), Ellen Kushner (Privilege of the Sword), Julie Phillips (James Tiptree Jr.: The Double Life of Alice B. Sheldon) and Delia Sherman (Changeling) all published wonderful books that were well-received. If you haven’t already read them—do so immediately!
Other dear friends also published fabby books, but these are the ones that I saw through gestation. In the same way I’m very excited to see how Holly Black’s Ironside and Cassandra Clare’s City of Bones fare next year. Do yourself a favour and get hold of copies as soon as you can!
Next year I have three English lanaguage publications on the horizon:
Magic Lessons will appear in paperback in February
The final book of the trilogy, Magic’s Child, will be out in hardcover in March.
Also in March—the SFBC’s 3-in-1 edition of the trilogy.
As you can imagine I’m dead excited to find out what my readers think of the complete trilogy. Do not hold back! (Unless what you have to say might harm a writer’s delicate sensibilities. Praise is good!)
This year has also been a great one for me blog. Readers way more than doubled this year, which is just lovely. I’m particularly excited to have picked up so many more readers here in Australia. Especially the ones I don’t know and am not related to. (Not that there’s anything wrong with my friends and relatives, mind. Well, not that much wrong.) Thank you so much everyone for hanging out and commenting. Your comments are more than half the fun. Without you there wouldn’t be much point. Much appreciated.
Last year on this day I set out my goals for 2006:
I’m aiming to write two books (both of which I’ve already started) in 2006 and sell one (two would be nice, but I don’t want to jinx myself). I also plan to spend the majority of the year in Sydney, cause now that I’m home I just want to stay. And I really, really, really want to get tickets for the Sydney Ashes test. Ideally for every day of play.
How did that work out?
I finished one book: Magic’s Child, but it wasn’t one of the books I was talking about above. So I didn’t finish either of the books I aimed to. Though I got awfully close to finishing the first draft of the great Australian feminist monkey knife-fighting mangosteen cricket fairy young adult novel. (So close I can smell it! Oh the frustration!)
This year I have the same goal: to finish two novels. My odds ar
16 Comments on Last Day of 2006, last added: 1/26/2007
shite fielding: Look at Australia in the field and then look at England. The Poms with a few exceptions (Collingwood, Panesar, Pietersen) have no intensity. They don’t run down every single ball, turning fours into threes, twos into ones, and saving singles. They look lethargic and bored.
shite captaincy: Flintoff looks lost. He’s not leading by example given his poor batting displays and erratic bowling and he’s not leading on the paddock. His field placings have been all over the place. He elects to bat when the wicket is iffy. He doesn’t seem to know whether he’s playing test cricket or Sunday arvo mah jong. And way to not show any confidence in your new bowlers Panesar and Mahmoud. Give ‘em three overs here, then pull ‘em off, and never let ‘em get their rhythm going.
shite field placings: What’s with the defensiveness? What’s with giving Monty fields that allow the batsmen to score at will? What’s with no consistent plan of attack?
shite batting: You’ve got ten blokes with bats. Surely you can get two or three of them not to throw their wickets away? And do none of you know how to shepherd the tail?
shite selections: Monty Panesar a very promising spin bowler. Chris Read is a million times the keeper that Geraint Jones is and Sajid Mahmoud’s got promise and all. Why were they kept out of the side by way less promising and performing players?
shite protection of your top secret bowling plans: I mean, honestly! Did you really have to make the farce farcier?
Your boat is listing, England, fix it. World cricket needs you. And I need you to get your shit together so there’ll be a fourth day in Sydney. I’ve got tickets! C’mon, people!
Meanwhile Australia is doing just fine. Every single player has more than proved their worth during this series. Andrew Symonds has finally shown what he can do at test level, Brett Lee has got his groove back, Stuart Clark is fabulous and Warne has proven once again what a gobsmackingly incredible cricketer he is. Oh, how I will miss him!
Did anyone else get a tad teary as he walked off the MCG with McGrath?
8 Comments on 4-0 and England weeps, last added: 1/26/2007
Agreed, but I don’t think they caved entirely on purpose. Australia really are vastly better than they are. It’s hard to know what to do when every time you have your opposition even remotely on the ropes they regroup and blow you away. I can imagine it must be bloody demoralising.
Like you I worry about the long term prospects of our beloved game. A strong England, West Indies and India is key. There are signs of spasmodic health from all three. But every time they play us (barring the last Ashes and India at home) it all blows away . . .
And Langer going? It really is the end of this era, isn’t it? It feels so weird. But a good time to retire. They all get to go out on high. Austrlia the strongest it’s ever been. And maybe Australia being a little weaker for a while will help lift the other test teams in the world? Though it’s absolutely no certainty we will be that much weaker. We’ve still got the likes of Stuart Clark and Micheal Hussey etc etc etc.
For the next month, there’s an ad for Magic’s Child up on 
Indeed. I’d go further: professional sports players at the top level (including test cricketers) are paid enormous amounts of money to basically be on show. The money they are making is, in part, compensation for having to watch what they say and act decently in public. Take it or leave it.
Unfortunately, far too many, in far too many sports, take their position as a licence to act like that word Justine used.
I agree, Justine. I went to see the cricket on the first day so I felt obliged to watch the whole test match (also because I could hear the cheering from the SCG inside my house). But I had to switch it off after they won because they were so embarrassing in their victory. Although if anyone dares to call their behaviour unaustralian I think I’ll be sick.
What’s more Australian than whinging? I thought it was us Pommies who did all the whinging!
(I love that photo - thanks for posting it.)
OOoohh!! Who gave the speech about their important books of fiction? ’cause if they’re that important, I need to read them.
Don’t worry, you’re not saying bad things about this writer. You’re reporting the fact that he writes important books.
and I thought this was going to be a post about me…your topic was probably much more interesting, though.
Melina: Yup. The whole notion of “unAustralian” or “unAmerican” irritates the hell out of me.
Libabelle: Yes, that’s right. Just joshing!
Patrick: It’s such an important book by such an important person that I feel sure you will find it on your own.
Grace: But this post is about you.
flintoff - the only british sportsman who i think is worth something. the others are like ‘it’s all about the money’.
wow, justine - only you could classify something as whining but make it so interesting and greatly written. i am officially in awe.
also, i don’t really want to buy something from someone who is mean or distracted. same concept as the author.
can we guess who the author is? pretty please?
Emily: You can guess all you like but I will never say who it was. I can tell you that it was not a young adult writer.
Pretentious fiction writer. I’m going to guess it was a SF writer, older, and male.
SCALZI!
(I’ll throw my hat in the ring with Harlan Ellison.)
As to behavior, it is a shame there is such a deficit of grace in the world, because there are plenty of sportsmen here in the States who desperately lack it.
The university I studied at had a men’s basketball team famous for jackassery. The coach was really a great person, though, it just never rubbed off on his charges (by eighteen I’d guess it’s impossible to teach humility to anyone without some major crisis stepping in). The t-shirts that got handed out during games, then, didn’t say a thing about the team–they just had GO LARRY emblazoned in huge letters.