From: Anonymous

I mistook the Lambda award for a science-fiction award that I had never heard of. That tipped the balance and I bought Slow River, one of the most gripping, well-rounded pieces of science-fiction I've ever read. I've never been happy about my ignorance before (or since). Imagine complex characters that I care about! Imagine science that stands up to more than a cursory examination! Most sci-fi authors do not need to post warnings about the fact that their characters are not real because that's fairly obvious from early on... And most authors do not get fan-mail from me; thank you.

Does anyone else out there buy books on the strength of the awards they've won? Usually an awards sticker on the jacket will attract my attention long enough to get me to pick the book up, but after trying to read several Pulitzer Prize winning novels in a row I've now decided that "Pulitzer" and "good novel" do not belong in the same sentence, and whenever I see that particular sticker it decides me against the book. Having said that, several people have urged me to read Empire Falls by Richard Russo, so at some point I'll get past my prejudice and give it a go. The Booker Prize, now, is one that might prompt me read a novel (Booker Prize winners usually have some kind of life, a sort of rollicking eagerness and vividness to their canvas), but the National Book Award provokes a feeling of neutrality in my book-buying breast. The Orange Prize means it's readable, usually. The National Book Critics Circle Award...well, that one's really variable. Sometimes they go with wacky for wackiness's sake (what Kelley and I refer to as and-now-for-my-next-trick writing)but sometimes they pick something pretty damn good.

The Lambda Awards usually go to well-written books that are also interesting. Every now and again they lean a little heavily towards the issue du jour, and every now and again they give the award to someone who should have won it before but didn't (a bit like the Oscars that way: guilt works wonders) but in general they're pretty reliable. I'm glad, anyway, that it prompted you to pick up Slow River though I have to admit to being surprised that, as you're a science fiction reader, it wasn't the Nebula Award sticker that tipped the balance.

From: george arrick

Why in the world would you say "I swang the hammer" & use "swang" twice in describing Aud working on her cabin (in "Stay")? I have a bet that you used "swang" because it's the past tense of "swing" in both Middle English & Old English and is quite in keeping with Aud's being rather a Luddite in her choice of tools & her insistence on restoring the cabin to its original state.

But. I'm sorry, I just cannot buy the death of Julia. Aud forgot she had a gun? Come on. Here's a martial arts expert who is always "on," who fantasizes about tearing out everybody's trachea so easily and simply or snapping their necks with two fingers, and she FORGETS?? I think that's just terrible. Again, I apologize for saying so -- but I don't think I'd care to read any more about Aud.

I think "purist" would be a better word than "Luddite." The Luddites of northern England rioted because they were afraid. Aud isn't afraid of modern technology, she just doesn't like it very much in this context. In other contexts she is quite willing to use technology when convenient, for example, digital media and wireless communication. With the use of swang as the past tense of swing, she's not being a purist or a luddite but is simply speaking the word the way she learnt it (see an earlier Ask Nicola for more on this subject). Given the fuss the word seems to have caused, I am seriously considering not using "swang" in the next book.

When you write that you're sorry, that you don't care to read any more about Aud, what is it, exactly, that you're hoping for? To be argued out of your position? For me to explain myself, or to see the error of my ways and apologise to you in return? To get your purchase price refunded? It has always struck me as disingenous when people say they're sorry for something and then they go ahead and do it anyway. It is rationalised as being polite, but I've always thought of it as a way to avoid taking responsibility for one's opinions. The way I see it, you think (or feel) something or you don't, and there's no reason to apologise. I suspect, though, that in many instances the preemptive apology is also a way of avoiding admitting emotion. In your case it sounds to me (obviously I'm inferring things that you may not have intended to imply) as though what you really want to express is disappointment, that Stay was not all you had hoped for, and, possibly, that because you feel hurt, you're rejecting the character who hurt you. I don't like the idea of disappointing readers, so I hope that's not the case. On the other hand, I'm glad that for a while at least I was able to create a character who felt real enough to you that she could provoke this outburst.

From: S. Castillo Samoy

My grandmother died on Thursday, May 30, the day my friend gave me her copy of THE BLUE PLACE for my roommate to read. She has one, so I picked it up and just finished it today, Tuesday, June 4. Thank you for such a literary ride! I didn't want to put it down but had to between work, Taekwon-Do, the Liberty basketball game and showers.
How: Prayer, gratitude.
Why: Because my time here is finite.
What does it all mean? I have no idea, but love is key.

Books have often taught me, and excited and soothed and provoked me; I'm glad that The Blue Place helped you a little.

A good book, for me, is as great an aid to peacefulness as meditation: it occupies vast portions of my mind and emotions leaving the subconscious free to glide along and reach its own conclusions and understandings and accomodations without all the shoulds and shouldn'ts of the left brain getting in the way. I find that bad books, even page-turning Great Reads, just make me restless. Films and television (even really good films and tv) also make me physically irritable. I can stand about two hours viewing, then I have to move around, do something else. A good book is different; it stills me for a while.

From: Jane Gladson(jgladson@pipeline.com)

You wrote, in answer to my request for you to repost an old Ask Nicola response: "As for that Ask Nicola question about MS...I wonder if it's in the "not yet archived" section? If it's not in there or the Archives, then I'm afraid it's lost forever. It just didn't occur to me to start archiving until a couple of years ago."

I had another look, and sure enough, it is there in the Archive, dated April 2000. It is still a smart, thoughtful piece, and I'm glad it is available.

One of these days I'll get around to archiving all that stuff. Really. Just as I'll get around to putting some short fiction up as PDF files, answering all my Ask Nicola questions in timely fashion, and brushing and flossing after every meal...

From: Eric Zhao (sichelshnitt@yahoo.com)

I think The Blue Place is just awesome. I mean, when was the last time a book had a superhero out of Norway? Just out of curiosity, what has been the reception of the book in Norway? I assume they teach English as a second language there, so it's possible there have been some Norwegian readers of the this book. Have you gotten any responses from the land of the Vikings and Trolls?

I've had email from a couple of Norwegians about the book, generally positive, though one thoughtfully pointed out sunrise in Oslo on May 17th (the day Julia gets shot) would come much earlier than I'd written--at around 3:30 am. I promised that when there was a new edition, I'd fix it. I still have his email, just in case. Someone from Sweden sent me a list of minor corrections for Norwegian spellings, for example, "koldt bord" should read as "koldtbord," one word, and "akevit" should be "akevitt," with two tt's. Many people wrote to tell me they'd spent years in Norway, or their family was from Norway, and that I got most of the emotional/psychological stuff right (which matters a great deal more to me than spelling--though if I had it to do all over again I'd make damn sure the sunrise and spelling were spot on). The biggest mistake in the book, though, is the matter of Julia's liver transplant. Not long after it was published, an emergency room doctor got in touch to explain why someone in her situation would not get a transplant, why medical professionals would in fact have supported what remained of her own liver and hoped it would regenerate to some extent. So when and if there is ever a new edition, there'll be a few changes.