Hmmm, saw a few links that had to pass along.

1. Author Katherine Dunn on living in Portland, OR at Smithsonian: "But the rain is soft, and I suspect it fosters creativity. Although Portland harbors doers and makers, inventors and scholars, athletes and brilliant gardeners, what touches me most is that this town has become a haven for artists of every discipline. They are reared here, or they come from far away for mysterious reasons. Their work makes life in Portland richer and more exciting."

2. Author Antonya Nelson owns a ghost town. Seriously. I don't know what to make of this - on one level it is wildly cool but on the other (more practical level) it's going to take a lot of work:

MY husband and I bought other parcels of land when they became available online. On them sit mine ruins, abandoned barns, sheds the deep rusted color of blood. There hasn't been a burial in the cemetery we own since 1991, although a few of the graves have obviously had more recent visitors, as slightly wilted flowers usually adorn a few spots. Trees have grown up through many of the plots; the oldest intact gravestone is dated 1887. There are a disproportionate number of dead children, as is true in any old cemetery. The wooden planks of mining days — those inexpensive, flammable headstones — have no legible words on them.

It seems to be a grown-up idea of camp which is waaay appealing. But, wow, that's a big commitment for a camp experience, don't you think?

3. Charlie Stross is not happy about the resurgence of steampunk. This all struck me as decidedly curmudgeonly especially this bit:

The Science! in steampunk (which purports to be science fiction, of a kind ... doesn't it?) is questionable at best (Cherie Priest, I'm looking at your gas-induced zombies) and frequently flimsier than even the worst junk that space opera borrows from the props department, because, as it happens, the taproots of steampunk lie prior to the vast expansion in the scientific enterprise that has come to dominate our era.

As a reader, this sort of thing drives me insane. There are now, according to Stross anyway, rules for how steampunk should exist. So Cherie Priest, who writes some flat out fun novels that also happen to be dark commentaries on war, peace and humanity in general, is supposed to follow rules about what steampunk means when crafting her novels? Really? How about she just writes stories that people like to read and leaves the labels (and the nebulous rules behind those labels) to someone else. Like her readers. The last time I checked there was no authority on steampunk. Or science fiction. Or fantasy. Or paranormal romance for that matter. As long as I can remember people have been arguing over whether or not FRANKENSTEIN is the first science fiction novel. I have no time in my life for any of this. All I know is that after reading several chapters of IT'S EASIER TO REACH HEAVEN THEN THE END OF THE STREET: A Jerusalem Memoir (aiming for a December review), I reach for DREADNOUGHT (Priest's latest - for my Jan column) because if I did not have it to read I would lose my ever loving mind.

I don't care if her zombies stand up to science. (I can't believe I just typed that - zombies have to stand up to science???) All I know is that I want to scream over the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and Priest writes a damn good story that just happens to be referred to as steampunk which reminds me in those dark moments that there is something nice about this world. That's what matters to me when I read fiction - the story - and she scores every single time. Call it proper steampunk (whatever that is) or don't, but I like it and for this reader, that's enough. (Actually, it's everything.)