What's New

05.02.08

- For those of you who will be in or near Seattle on Tuesday, 6th May, I'll be doing a reading at
Hugo House, 7:00 pm.

But this isn't any old reading, this is a super awesome double- (triple- quadruple-) goodness extravaganza. For one thing, I'll be reading with fellow Lambda Literary Nominee, Corrina Wycoff, for another, there will be beer and wine, for another, the whole thing is being filmed for posterity, and for yet another I'll be telling two of my favourite stories, the one about how I got the nickname No-Pants Griffith and stopped believing in fairies, and the one about sex and love and Catholic convent school.

Corrina is nominated this year in the debut fiction category, for a kick-arse collection of stories, O Street, and I'm nominated for memoir/biography, for my little-box-that-could, And Now We Are Going to Have a Party: Liner notes to a Writer's Early Life.

So please drop by, have a drink, listen to our stories, ask us questions (throw peanuts--whatever works for you). And don't forget to say hello.

04.24.08

- For those show like to read about process, I've written a longish entry in my
Gemaecca blog about the methods I'm using to write my (still untitled) novel about Hild of Whitby.

04.17.08

- I've just found out that
Ammonite has won the Premio Italia, an award for Best Internation Novel, award at the annual Italcon. Wow. The little book that could. It's been out in the world fifteen years now, and readers are still finding it. That thrills me.
- A reminder that I blog in three places now: Ask Nicola, which is a continuation of the old Ask Nicola on this site, which I had to discontinue due to spam; Gemaecca, where I talk about all things seventh century for my novel-in-progress, and MySpace. You can sign up for the feeds for all three, and it's probably the best way to keep abreast of what I'm up to.

04.14.08

- I've updated the
appearances page with some info on upcoming events in Seattle and Los Angeles.

04.13.08

- Diesel eBooks are currently offering 20% off my novels (all except Always which isn't available in any electronic format, sigh), simply
visit their store and type in the code GRIF0fb87 at checkout.

04.04.08

- I have a screed up on The Huffington Post:
Taser Buzz Kill. Enjoy.

04.01.08

-
Always, the third Aud novel, is out today in paperback. In honour of the auspicious date, she has decided to run for President.

Aud wasn't born in the US, she's a citizen because her father was a citizen, but she was born in the UK to a Norwegian mother. So, first of all, Aud would have to figure out a way to get a constitutional amendment passed in nine months. Actually, she'd need two, because not only was she not born here, she's not yet thirty-five. If she could get that done, she would certainly deserve to rule, er, govern.

Next up, being an immigrant, she'd tackle immigration issues. She would set about turning the millions of illegal immigrants who keep the US economy ticking over into documented tax-payers with access to education and health care and legal protections. Then she would quadruple the numbers of visas available to qualified non-citizens of other countries.

Naturally, in order to liberalise immigration, she'd have to create and push through some kind of civil partnership legislation: it's not fair if the wives of straight male citizens can come live here, but the partners of lesbians can't.

Civil partnership, of course, will never go through until lgbtqi (quiltbag) folk are allowed to serve openly in the military. So Don't Ask, Don't Tell would be history about forty seconds after Aud took the oath.

In order to take the oath, Aud would have to decide whether or not to reveal her middle name.

Aud lives in the US, was raised in the UK, and is culturally Norwegian. She doesn't believe Americans are better than anyone else. She doesn't believe in protectionism or isolationism. She believes in free movement of people, money, idea, and goods. She's a total freebooter, er, free-trader. Allied to that, though, she's a strong believer in social justice. She'd rope in her mum--who by now will be Prime Minister of Norway--to persuade the United Nations to really, really pay attention to international labour law. She'd fight for better working conditions for workers everywhere (without offering false and unsustainable protections).

Under Aud's watch, the most important ambassadorial post would not be Paris or Beijing or London or Moscow, but the UN. She would choose a smart, tough, able-to-play-nicely representative. In order to play nicely, of course, the US would have to start actually making its promised annual contributions to the organisation. And if the US were doing it, you can bet we'd find a way to make the other countries pay, too.

And if the UN were fully funded and politically supported, oh, the changes we'd see. Money tends to put everyone would be in a better mood; they'd been less prickly and competetive. Change might even reach the Security Council. A handful of Permanent Members might no longer constantly screw things up for everyone else.

All women would be required to take self-defense classes at school. Title IX would be enforced to the max. Any man using the word 'cunt' in public more than once a year (even as the 'amusing' title of a 527 organisation, the legality of which Aud would consider abolishing) would have his legs broken and, no, the government would not pay for his medical care.

Aud would find a way to make universal healthcare workable. (It works in Norway. It mostly works in the UK. It's not rocket science, people.) A lot of that would involve reining in the drug companies. All the rules around who pays for the research and how that research is reported would change. The results of all drug trials, funded publicly or privately, successful or not, would be available on PubMed. Sales representatives of Big Pharma would not be allowed to donate any material, even inexpensive tchotkes like magnets and note pads, to doctors' offices.

Doctors' offices would be required to have decent heating and ventilation, magazines less than four months old, and cellphone jamming equipment.

Cellphone jamming equipment would be installed in all public places, especially buses, trains, movie theatres and restaurants. If you can't smoke there, you can't yammer, either. No cellphone use, period, in a moving vehicle. Or Aud will make you eat it (the phone, then the vehicle).

No one injured in a traffic accident because they weren't wearing their seatbelt or were talking on the phone, anyone with self-inflicted disease--cirrhosis due to alcohol consumption, lung cancer because of smoking, brain damage because of illegal drug use--should get any kind of government assistance for the treatment of same. That should, over time, increase the population's IQ, which would make all Aud's educational reforms (more charter schools, accountability of principal teachers, voucher system, the removal of stupid testing systems) even more successful.

All sin taxes--on alcohol, tobacco etc.--and luxury taxes (boats, jewellery, cars etc over, say, $150,000) would triple. Tax on gasoline would quadruple.

The resulting federal tax windfall would go immediately towards state funding for mass transit infrastructure, alternative energy sources (not, oh not not not corn ethanol, which is the biggest environmental boondoggle of the last five years), and energy consumption reduction measures. Automobile congestion taxes for all big cities would be encouraged. Recycling in any community over 5,000 would be mandatory, with all fines being paid in community service, such as cleaning up garbage from streams and planting trees. Oh, and taxes on pesticides would quintuple their price. Littering would be punishable by haemarroids.

Aud believes in the power of money. One of the first things she'd do is institute a cap-and-trade carbon emissions system: you pay for the amount of carbon you release into the wild. It would probably be better to pay for the carbon you pull from the ground and/or import, i.e. a carbon tax. But I don't think the mechanisms are all in place yet. Anyway, in the UK, paying for water (it was free until the early 1980s) prompted massive reduction in water usage; capitalism has its uses. And Aud's father was an enormously successful businessman.

Aud's mother is a diplomat. Aud believes in diplomacy before all else. She believes in planning, in having the necessary funds to hand for any action (military or otherwise) and would no more have started a war in Iraq than fly to the moon. (Actually, she thinks NASA has done a terrible job the last 20 years, and would find other ways to galvanise the exploration of space--which she thinks is very cool and, more to the point, necessary.) She thinks that if the US could design the Marshall Plan for post WWII Europe, there's no reason Iraq couldn't be helped to prosper pdq (pretty damn quick) with the cooperation--the real cooperation, even eagerness--of the UN. (Japan is brilliant at infrastructure projects; Norway is fabulous at human capital--why not rope them in?)

Aud would cancel the war on drugs (which she believes makes about as much sense as a war on frowning or birdsong) and carefully and systematically decriminalise controlled substances. And she would tax the hell out of them. Some things she would provide free of charge: condoms, needles, sanitary protection, laundromats, and bicycles at transit hubs.

Next, Aud would look at some sacred cows, such as minimum wage, farm subsidies, and social security. Aud is a superwoman, but she's not god. I think even she might quail at tackling social security in her first term. So she wouldn't touch that third rail, at least for a while. She'd probably keep minimum wage, she'd completely rejigger farm subsidies, gradually shifting aid to organic farming and inner-city vegetable production. She thinks chicken should not be raised inside city limits, though--nasty, dirty little vectors of disease. (Oh, okay, she thinks two pullets per household--but no more--might work.)

Speaking of small animals, only people with very, very big yards would be encouraged to keep big dogs. The de-clawing of cats and other pets would be a criminal offense. Aud doesn't like cats much but she thinks cutting part of their digits off for owners' convenience is disgusting and cruel. Ditto the death penalty. (She's killed a few people in her time, but always for a good reason, e.g. her own survival. Judicial murder is pointless; it doesn't act as a deterrent; it doesn't save the state money.)

Aud would accept Secret Service protection only from those who are as good as she is at spotting danger and handling it, and, oh, who wear clothes as good as hers. Voters everywhere would faint when Aud and her protective detail strode into a building; those who didn't pass out would hum 'The Stride of the Valkyries' under their breath and spend the rest of their lives boring people with the story of being almost blinded by beauty. They would never really recover.

Would the country (the world?) ever really recover? I haven't a clue, but it would be seriously cool to find out, seriously fab to have in charge someone who emphasises that there are no magic bullets, no funny handshakes, no secret decoder rings, just smarts, planning, good intentions and hard work. Aud for President!

03.30.08

- Ask Nicola has moved, for now, to
http://asknicola.blogspot.com. I'll be answering at least one question a day, every day, until I'm caught up. Drop by and read, comment, subscribe to the feed and don't miss a thing. And one day I really, really will redesign this website with 21st C technology. Woo hoo.

03.15.08

- The
Lambda Literary Awards finalists were announced yesterday. And Now We Are Going to Have a Party is a finalist in the women's memoir/biography category. The five finalists are:

Comfort Food for Breakups, Marusya Bocurkiuw (Arsenal Pulp Press)
And Now We Are Going to Have a Party, Nicola Griffith (Payseur & Schmidt)
An Army of Ex-Lovers, Amy Hoffman (University of Massachusetts Press)
Two Lives: Gertrude & Alice, Janet Malcolm (Yale University Press)
Waiting for the Call, Jaqueline Taylor (University of Michigan Press)

03.09.08

- Well, just pretend I never did my last post. I've had to cancel my trip to Santa Cruz. If you were planning to attend, my apologies. I was looking forward to it, too. Grrr.

03.03.08

- Live in the Bay Area? Fancy listening to me read from my work (fiction and non-fiction and strange hypnogogic writings) and wax lyrical about myth and mystery, archetype and stereotype? Then make your way to the
UC Santa Cruz campus at 4:00 pm Tuesday March 11th for two hours of free entertainment. (It might be filmed; if so, I'll see what I can do about posting clips sometime down the road.)

03.02.08

- I'm not normally one to kiss and tell but I just can't keep quiet about this one: last night I
got Lucky: a go-go dancer at a lesbian club. Wow. That's a first for me...

03.01.08

- I run a
Yahoo discussion list (we're about 250 strong; traffic is sometimes very light, sometimes heavy; but always always well-mannered; the primary rule is assume good intent on the part of other members). After some recent spirited political discussion, one of our members, Janet Sumner, recently posted the following email which she has given me kind permission to reprint.

Declaration: I'm a Canadian. And I get paid to change political minds or rather create the circumstances that will allow change to happen. I work for an environmental group.

In my line of work, we are trying to choose the right mix of images, words and beliefs that will make you the voter choose our issues or guy or gal.

Number 1: Who is your target?

Number 2: Who Can you Swing?

The following is a brief summary of a television broadcast of a class conducted by Karl Rove after they won the first election. [amazing what you can see while channel flicking at 3AM sleeping on a friend's couch in Georgia]

In the US approximately 48% of the voters vote republican and 48% vote democrat. (note that's not 48% of the people)

So at most any political campaign is going after 2% potential swing and possibly maybe attracting 1% of a new vote and if you were wildly successful you would go for another 1% of new vote.

So now you know how many, Who are they?

In the first Bush 'win' they went after the security moms. They were the moms who usually voted democrat based on their children's health issues but could be swayed to vote republican and hold their nose on pro-choice because of heightened security risks. So essentially, they scared the crap out of soccer moms to get some of that elusive 2%. (obviously my editorial choice of words) [and this is not me arguing for how they actually won, but rather demonstrating how they structure the communications strategy to win]

In fact in some states the Republicans had to do a two-step on items by supporting the Christian Right and attracting democrat soccer moms who wanted greater security for their kids.

{What follows is my opinion}

Now, as a very political animal in my career and general disposition, I love to follow issues. However, there are just too many to keep track of. So whether I like it or not my vote is not entirely based on issues. I believe that to be true for most people. We can't. It's no longer possible. We are far to steeped in the arts of persuasion.

What a politician says is not nearly as important as how you feel when you see them or hear them. In my job, we are always asking this question about a report or an article. But how will it make you feel? Even if all the content is right if the feeling conveyed is to scare you and make you feel like the world is going to end it won't matter what solution I propose if you've psychically left the room. I need to identify with you, reflect part of you back to you, then to uplift and make you feel like the art of the possible is here and you are part of the solution, then I can convince you on my issue.

For example, in the last US federal election there was a point where the political advisor to the dems was trying to get the perfect shot on the front page of the New York Times and the Washington Post. He decided on a particular juncture of streets so that it would ensure that the photo op would have all the streets in the photo completey covered in people. (it was actually a bottle neck) They chose to accentuate this and put up barriers to force bodies into tighter options so the photo would look crowded. Then they wanted 'the Boss' Mr. Springsteen to be holding the democratic nominee's hand up in the centre of the shot on a stage, surrounded by people with a State White House in the background. It looked magisterial and etheral at the same time.

They planned it. And they got it. Perfect Shot. And it told you more than the thousand words of content in the articles throughout the paper. It told you here was a man of the people, in touch with the bard of our times, already aloft as a winner. Choose him because he is in the open air of freedom riding the belief of the people. He is already on the steps of the white house.

For whatever reason, the strategy didn't hit the right target group with the right message to sway them. Because the dems lost.

But the Obama folks are getting it right. We can be mad at the lack of insight by people the total obfuscation about the facts, sexism, whatever. But his campaign is designed on purpose to pull a new vote. Because the dem's some say lost in the last election because while they were more popular, on election day they could not pull out voters. Obama is doing just that. Will he be able to do it on election day will be the test.

He is supposed to be about a new vision, a brighter future. And to do that they have forsaken some content and are not focussing on experience because that is the ground Hillary has staked out and clearly he would lose to McCain on that one too. So as the youngest candidate with a hope to win, they chose a strategy that would lift him above the experience factor and hopefully pull enough new vote to beat the republican's 48%.

Hillary on the other hand is portraying another message. She is the message of experience and ability. My read is her campaign believes it can capture the republicans who could swing on economic issues and will vote dem just to get out of bad economic times. They will be willing to switch to a woman instead of continuing with a faulty fiscal policy. They are choosing a diplomacy that is not about going to war but is still based in something they recognize. Those same republicans are afraid of the Obama way.

So Hillary's campaign is one of impressing you with very presidential speaches, featuring her wins, her experience, showcasing her commanding a room, arms outstretched above the crowd, smiling as she comfortably exudes commander in chief. I see her in red an awful lot on the front pages addressing a crowd.

One of the most difficult things about this election is that the strategy to win the democratic nomination may not be the same strategy to swing the 2% or attract a new 2% on election day.

And how you feel about the colour red or blue is more important when those political advisors are framing their campaigns than how a single issue will affect you.

Does her voice need to be modified up a decibel or down. Does Obama need a faster or slower cadence. How many smiles should they have before the pause. These frankly all create autonomic responses in you that create your 'love' for their candidate and they are researched to death and then honed throughout the campaign. You do not get to see the unvarnished truth about either of these people.

I find this tidbit particularly interesting. According to the study of social marketing, If I knock on your door and you answer it and I ask you to sign a pledge saying you think every child should have breakfast before school and you sign it, then that single action lays down the neural tracks inside your brain to tell you that you now self-identify with child hunger. So when any other person or group approaches you and asks you for anything that is branded or looks to you like it means child hunger, you will be 70% more likely to say yes, just because it is now part of your identity.

Political campaigns are not about winning lazy people who don't think, they are very well researched communications strategies with target audiences and game plans designed to swing a target audience and/or attract a new vote. They use colour, sound, image composition, tone and issues are part of the mix.

It is absolutely fascinating to study this from north of the border and apply the lessons learned.

And if I were gonna vote, I'd be choosing Hillary because I like someone who is solid on the issues. But I know I've been manipulated into thinking this because I haven't really researched Obama on issues. I have bought the line that he is a lightweight without any research on my own.

And I am disappointed in the mysoginist rhetoric in the media that is allowable, so I respect her for being able to get up every day and face it down.

thanks for the lively space.

cheers,
Janet
This is a marvellous reminder that even those of us who believe we're well informed just...aren't. I knew all this but, wow, it was so very good to be reminded by someone who works in the middle of it.

02.28.08

- For those outside the US who can't just pop out and buy a copy, I've put my Curve interview up on the
Interviews page. Enjoy.

02.26.08

- There's a one-page interview of me in the March issue of
Curve magazine (the one with k.d. lang on the cover).

02.21.08

- Periphery: Erotic Lesbian Futures (ed. Lynne Jamneck) is now available in shops.  Buy it from your local Booksense store, from
Amazon.com (there's also a Kindle edition, for you early adopter folks) or, if you want a signed, personalised book, from University Bookstore here in Seattle.  I haven't seen my copy yet, but it has a great line-up: Gwyneth Jones, Melissa Scott, Carolyn Ives Gilman, Cecilia Tan, Lyda Morehouse, Jean Stewart, and more.  My contribution, "Touching Fire," is an old one, first published in 1991 (wow, 17 years ago--I'm very fond of it) but I can't wait to take a look at the others.

I found an early review here.

02.20.08

- Here's some useless data. Since I installed Google Analytics on
nicolagriffith.com about a year ago, 13,697 unique visitors from 97 countries have visited.  (The top twelve countries, in order, are: US, UK, Canada, France, Australia, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Romania, Sweden, South Africa, and Turkey.)  Wow, nearly a hundred countries.  It makes me feel, hmmn, sort of like the world really is one tiny floating island in space and we all need to be extra kind to each other because we're all in this together.  Or, to paraphrase a friend's sig (hey, Caryl), 'On spaceship Earth there are no passengers, we're all crew'.

Oh, and since I installed GA on my Gemęcca blog two days ago, I've had 65 visitors from four countries (US, UK, Canada, Germany).... 

 

 


Search


Guest Map


Ask a question