Sunday, December 25, 2016

Sci-fi Subgenres and Cli-Fi

Sci-fi Subgenres

Space Opera Hard
Science Fiction Soft
Science Fiction Firm
Science SF Mundane
Science Fiction Cli-Fi
Science Fiction Social Science
Science Fiction Near-Future
Science Fiction Age Regression
Science Fiction Immortality
Science Fiction Mind Transfer
Science Fiction Transhumanism
 Science Fiction Robot
Science Fiction Cybernetic Revolt
Science Fiction Synthetic Biology
Science Fiction Cyberpunk
Nanopunk
Biopunk
Wetware
Steampunk
Retro Futurism
Dying Astronaut
Science Fiction First Landings
Science Fiction First Contact
Science Fiction Alien Conspiracy
Science Fiction Shapeshifting
Science Fiction Xenofiction Dystopian
Science Fiction Utopian
Science Fiction World Government
SF Alternate History
Science Fiction Parallel Worlds
Science Fiction Multiverse
Science Fiction Time Travel
Gothic Science Fiction
Literary Science Fiction
Recursive Science Fiction
Slipstream
Comic Science Fiction

AND MORE:

Political Science Fiction Religious Science Fiction Christian Science Fiction Clerical Science Fiction Mythological Science Fiction Cozy Catastrophe SF Restored Eden Science Fiction Dying Earth Apocalyptic Science Fiction Post-Apocalyptic Science Fiction ESP Science Fiction Sports Science Fiction Zombie Fiction Sci-Fi Horror Sci Fi Science Fantasy Speculative Fiction Media Tie-In Science Fiction Detective Science Fiction Hard Boiled Science Fiction SpyFi Pulp Science Fiction Space Western Science Fiction Scientific Romance Sword and Planet Science Fiction Planetary Romance Lost Worlds Bigger Than Worlds Voyages Extraordinaires Hollow Earth Science Fiction Exotic Ecosystems SF Undersea Science Fiction Microbiology Science Fiction Astrobiology SF Astrosociobiology SF Ecological Science Fiction Frontier Science Fiction Generation Ship Science Fiction Colonization Science Fiction Terraforming Science Fiction World Building Science Fiction Hyperspace Science Fiction Spunky Heroine Erotica Science Fiction Gay Science Fiction

After January 20, 2017 ......the ''A.D.'' after the term 2017 A.D. ('#annodonaldo) will stand for ''Anno Donaldo''. [RSVP]


                The Donald in his early days


After January 20, 2017 ......the ''A.D.'' after the term 2017 A.D. ('#annodonaldo) will stand for

''Anno Donaldo'' YEAR 1.

 [RSVP]

MORE:

2017 A.D. aka ''Anno Donaldo'' YEAR ONE
2018  A.D. aka ''Anno Donaldo''. YEAR TWO
2019  A.D. aka ''Anno Donaldo''.  YEAR THREE
2020  A.D. aka ''Anno Donaldo''. YEAR FOUR

2021  A.D. ''Anno Donaldo''. YEAR FIVE?
2022  A.D. ''Anno Donaldo''.
2023  A.D. ''Anno Donaldo''.
2024  A.D. ''Anno Donaldo''.

New York Times newsroom lawyer David McCraw Hardly Expected His October 2016 Letter to Donald Trump Pre-Election Time to Go Viral But It Did. Here's the inside skinny.

''I Hardly Expected My October Letter to Donald Trump to Go Viral''


Times Insider delivers behind-the-scenes insights into how news, features and opinion come together at The New York Times. In this piece, David McCraw, a newsroom lawyer for The Times, describes the reactions to his now famous letter to Donald J. Trump’s lawyer.
Photo

The New York Times printed David McCraw’s reply in last Friday’s paper — along with the original letter, from Marc E. Kasowitz, demanding a retraction. Credit Stephen Hiltner/The New York Times

Thursday morning began with an email from Dean Baquet, executive editor of The Times. No message, just the re: line “After midnight.” Attached was the late-night letter that Donald J. Trump’s lawyers had sent, threatening to sue The Times over an article from the day before about two women who said Mr. Trump had groped them.
Dean’s email was no surprise (other than that curious call-out to the Eric Clapton song). The internet had lit up Wednesday night with reports from the Trump campaign that the candidate intended to sue the paper.
Like lots of lawyers, I write dozens of lawyer letters every year. They tend to have an audience of one: An attorney who writes to the paper unhappy with something we have done. I write back, and more often than not, nothing more is ever heard. We take no offense. We’re lawyers, not novelists.
Continue reading the main story



I knew of course that this one would be different. The Trump campaign had distributed the threat letter on the internet overnight; the morning news shows were leading with it. What I didn’t know was just how different it would be.
By Friday night, more than a million people would come to The Times’s website to read the response I ended up writing. On Saturday, two days after the letter went public, it still topped the “most emailed” and “most viewed” list on nytimes.com.
I wrote the letter in about 45 minutes on Thursday morning, between a meeting on the company’s emergency operations plan and a conference call about a new patent suit we have in Texas. (Is somebody really claiming to have invented a method for switching from watching one video to watching another?) Three of my colleagues from the Legal Department — Ken Richieri, Diane Brayton and Ian MacDougall — then came by to go over the draft.
We went around for about 30 minutes, talking about whether the overall point and tone were right, whether words should be tweaked, whether the ending was right. I went online to double-check quotes. We tried to gauge the likely public reaction. In the end, we convinced ourselves to make a few minor tweaks but to stick with the original draft.
“Stand by your Twitter accounts. We are about to go live,” I wrote to my colleagues in the legal department. I intended it to be a joke.

Document

The New York Times’s Lawyer Responds to Donald Trump

This is the letter David McCraw, vice president and assistant general counsel of The New York Times, wrote in response to a request from Marc E. Kasowitz, Mr. Trump's lawyer, to retract an article that featured two women accusing Mr. Trump of touching them inappropriately years ago, and issue an apology.
OPEN Document

In the first 90 minutes, I had 90 emails. Then the pace picked up.
Hundreds of emails poured in. They came from Tanzania, the Northern Mariana Islands, England, Sri Lanka, Australia and from all over the United States. Someone asked to translate the letter into Spanish. Most of the emails were from strangers, many from lawyers, but also from a nurse and a doctor, retired people, the founder of a nonprofit, law school students, parents whose kids had seen the letter online at college, journalists from other news organizations. I heard from students I had taught 30 years ago when I was a college professor, former colleagues, law school classmates I hadn’t seen in two decades, my brother’s high school girlfriend, a person who says we met at a wedding 10 years ago, my ex-wife. (Mr. Trump’s attorneys, as is often the way with lawyer letters, have not written back yet.)
One person took issue with my comma usage. Somebody suggested I be disbarred. I was made aware of a raging online debate set off by the letter over whether there should be two spaces or one after a period.
Photo

Mr. McCraw, in his office at the Times building. Credit Santiago Mejia/The New York Times

Many people read the letter the way I did, as an expression of some basic points about how the law of press freedom works in this country. Lots of people took the opportunity to vent about Donald Trump. Not surprising, but not really my point. I grew up in a small farming town in Illinois. Both my father and my mother were World War II veterans who served in Europe. Unlike many of my Manhattan friends, I get why Mr. Trump appeals to good people like the ones I grew up with.
But when it comes to the right of Americans to speak out or to know what people in power are up to, I don’t much care about people’s politics. I have sued the Obama administration more than 20 times over its failure to respond appropriately to Freedom of Information requests. One of my colleagues in Legal used to refer to a lawyer in the Cuomo administration as “that person you scream at on the phone.” I know why public officials have private email accounts, and why they should cut it out.
The most moving of the emails were from women. Many saw my letter as standing up not just for The Times but for the two women who had come forward to our reporters to tell their stories.
“I felt you were also speaking ... for all of the women that have been bullied after reporting sexual harassment/assault/abuse. For that I sincerely thank you,” one wrote.
Another wrote: “I don’t know one woman who has not experienced some level of this sort of aggressive, entitled behavior over the course of her life. Yet so many of us just try to bury it and move on, while arguing within ourselves whether we weren’t partially to blame. Perhaps this new discussion will help bring about meaningful change. Thank you for helping bring this into sharp relief.”

Times Insider delivers behind-the-scenes insights into how daily news, features and opinion pieces come to life at The New York Times. Visit us at Times Insider and follow us on Twitter. Questions or feedback? Email us.

    Someone else talked about the harassment she and others had experienced. “I know more women than I can count on both my hands and feet who have had similar experiences to my own. The number of said women who had the courage to push against these more powerful men can be, sadly, counted on one hand alone ... I thank The New York Times for standing strong.”
    Other people simply wanted to express their appreciation. Somebody wrote to say that it made him proud to have gone to the same high school as I did — unless I was some other David McCraw. “Even if you are not an M.H.S. grad — I still admire what you did.”

    “Sending you the highest of fives,” wrote another reader, although she predicted my spam filter would end up with her email. A couple in California said they had opened a bottle of wine and toasted the letter. A New Yorker said he wanted to be the “289,000th human being to say thank you.”
    But my favorite email was the one that ended: “As my sister put it, ‘I’ve never wanted to hang a paragraph from a lawyer on my fridge before.’ ”

    A look inside the Letters to Editor page of the NYTimes from Letter-to-the-Editor editor Tom Feyer re "TEACHING CLIMATE CHANGE" letter



    On February 17, for the first time in over 40 years of writing letters to the New York Times, beginning in college in the 1960s, one of this blogger's missives finally made it into print in the Times. Read it below:


    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/opinion/teaching-climate-change.html?_r=0

    The Opinion Pages | Letter

    ''Teaching Climate Change''


    To the Editor:
     
    Science Teachers Lag on Climate Change” (news article, Feb. 12) reports on a survey indicating that science teachers in American high schools and middle schools spend only one to two hours on average per year teaching about climate change, and that 30 percent of them tell students that recent global warming “is likely due to natural causes.”
     
    This sounds serious; in fact, it is catastrophic. The fate of the world literally depends on the education of the American public and its understanding of the impending crisis.
     
    DAN BLOOM
    Taiwan
     
    The writer, an American expatriate, is a frequent blogger about climate change and climate fiction.
     
    =========================
     
    Readers of this blog might wonder about how Mr Feyer (a Princeton grad [history major] who emigrated to the USA as a young boy age 4 from Hungary with his family in 1957) .....and his Letters Page associates..... make their selections. Here' the inside skiny.

    Mr Feyer has always said that the Letters page is “the readers’ page, not mine.”
    HE ONCE TOLD A BLOGGER IN NEW YORK STATE:

    ''I seek to present an accurate sampling of reader responses, a range of ideas and perspectives, timely and thoughtful commentary, and – I hope – some lighthearted fun as well.  I’m guided by the readers’ interests, politics, obsessions, quirks and so on. The goal is simply to offer a snapshot of what readers care about in an interesting and thoughtful way.''
    How did Mr Feyer become the Letters-to-the-Editor editor in 1999?
     HE TOLD A BLOGGER ONCE IN NEW YORK STATE: "I became letters editor in 1999, when I was recommended for the job by senior editors at the paper. I had been an editor at The Times since 1980, mostly on the foreign desk, where I started as a copy editor and eventually worked in several supervisory roles, including day assignment editor, night editor and weekend editor. I’ve been enjoying the letters job for more than 17 years now. There’s something new and interesting every day, and no limit to subject matter: anything and everything under the sun (and even beyond – The Times has a cosmos writer!). I have smart, dedicated colleagues, and The Times has a passionate, intelligent readership that loves to tell us when we’re right and (especially) when we’re wrong.''

    How many letters on a topic/subject doe the NYT Letters Page normally receive? 
     FEYER TOLD A BLOGGER ONCE IN NEW YORK STATE: ''That depends on the subject, of course. Some topics, like the recent campaign and election, receive hundreds if not thousands of letters a week at their peak. Some articles generate only a letter or two, if that. Depending on the news, we generally receive 500 to 1,000 letters a day. I read letters constantly, from morning to night and on weekends, but fortunately Saturday is a relatively slow day and I get a bit of a break.''
    What is your selection process? '
     FEYER TOLD A BLOGGER ONCE IN NEW YORK STATE: ''Most letters come by email, and we use filters to tag key words (for example: Trump, Clinton, health, columnists’ surnames) and sort them into email folders. My colleagues and I then work our way through the folders, starring the best candidates. The hardest part is boiling many excellent letters down to a few – chosen because of their arguments, a balance of views, good writing, occasional wit or humour. It’s all subjective, of course, and no two editors would pick the exact same letters.''

    How much are writer affiliations or fame factor a factor in making a decision to run their letter?
    FEYER TOLD A BLOGGER ONCE IN NEW YORK STATE:  ''If a letter writer has expertise in the subject at hand and writes a good letter about it, that certainly improves the odds. Some writers speak for a government, company, trade group or public policy organization, and all that is taken into account. Many writers with affiliations are responding to criticism in the paper, and we certainly try to give them a chance to respond. We receive many letters from writers with affiliations: academics, political and religious figures, doctors, lawyers, scientists – you name it. ''

    Also, some tips from Tom in 2004 on writing an effective letter. Same applies today!

    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/23/opinion/editors-note-the-letters-editor-and-the-reader-our-compact-updated.html

    Last September of 2003, as letters editor of The Times, I used some of this space for an essay called ''To the Reader,'' introducing myself and outlining the mission and the mechanics of the letters page.
     
    It seemed to strike a chord, and scores of readers wrote back. Many were pleased to learn that the anonymous editor had a name. Some were grateful for the advice; others were amused, acerbic, occasionally even dyspeptic. I had my 15 minutes of fame: a flurry of dissection on the Internet; an interview on TV that lasted, well, about 15 minutes. We printed two letters in response -- pro and con, naturally.
     
    But readers, new and old, send in questions (and even complaints!) about the letters page almost every day, and so a refresher course may help. This is an attempt to answer some frequently asked questions.
     
    I've submitted many letters, but none have been published. How can I improve my chances?
     
    Thanks largely to the ease and ubiquity of e-mail, letters submissions (and a lot besides) come in relentlessly, round the clock, from around the country and around the world, at a rate of roughly a thousand a day. My small staff and I try to read them all, but we can publish only about 15 letters a day.

    While the odds are long, some letter writers seem to know how to shorten them. Here are some tips: Write quickly, concisely and engagingly. We're in an age of fast-moving news and virtually instant reaction; letters about an especially timely topic often appear within a day or two (and almost always within a week).
    At times, some big stories generate hundreds of letters a day -- Sept. 11 (at one point we were getting hundreds an hour), the war in Iraq, politics, to name a few.
     
    When you write about a particularly contentious issue, bear in mind that many others do so as well. We can try to capture a sense of what's on readers' minds, but we can't be comprehensive.
     
    Your suggested length for letters is about 150 words. Why so short? (Or, as one writer put it after I cited the brevity of the Gettysburg Address, ''Why does Lincoln get 250 and the rest of us a measly 150?'')
     
    Ideally, the letters page should be a forum for a variety of voices, and that means letting a lot of readers have a turn. With our limited space, we have room for letters that make their case with a point or two, but not for full-length articles. (For those, try our neighbors at the Op-Ed page.)
    Once in a while, a particularly eloquent, newsworthy or pointed letter is allotted Lincolnesque space in print, but that is the exception.
    You've said that the letters page ''does not have a political coloration of its own.'' Yet liberal opinion seems to dominate, and conservatives seem to have a lesser voice. Why?
    In selecting letters, I try to present a fair sampling of reader opinion, as well as a balance of views, pro and con. Writers to The Times -- by no means all, certainly, but a clear majority -- tend to be liberal, often vociferously so. Among our letter writers, critics of the Bush administration, especially over the war in Iraq, outnumber its defenders by a substantial margin.
    On same-sex marriage, to cite another example, proponents far outnumber opponents among our letter writers. But there is more of a divide on other national issues, like abortion, affirmative action and immigration.
    We welcome opinions from all sides: the majority, the dissenters, the contrarians. While I naturally have to use my judgment, it's not my opinion that determines the complexion of the page, it's yours.
    Do you edit letters?
    We reserve the right to edit for space, clarity, civility and accuracy, and we send you the edited version before publication. If your letter is selected, we will try to reach you and ask a few questions: Did you write the letter? (We're not amused by impostors.) Is it exclusive to The Times? (It should be.) Do you have a connection to the subject you're writing about? (Readers should be able to judge your credibility and motivation.)
    What is your responsibility for ensuring that facts cited in letters are ccurate?
    Letter writers, to use a well-worn phrase, are entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts. There is, of course, a broad gray area in which hard fact and heartfelt opinion commingle. But we do try to verify the facts, either checking them ourselves or asking writers for sources of information. Sometimes we goof, and then we publish corrections.
    Why are there so many letters from people with credentials or titles after their names?
    These come in many flavors: an official's response to criticism; a statement of policy, printed for the record or for its news value; a view that we feel adds an interesting perspective or expertise to the debate.
     
    As with any letter, writers speak only for themselves or their organizations; publication should not be taken as an endorsement of that view by The Times. The aim is to stimulate discussion, not end it.
    A personal note, for those who've asked: I've been an editor at The Times for 23 years and counting, nearly 5 as letters editor, and a New Yorker since early childhood. I was born in Budapest, Hungary, in 1953 and came to America with my parents -- survivors of Nazism and refugees from Communism -- in 1957. Five years later, we swore an oath as naturalized American citizens.
     
    Perhaps unsurprisingly, then, my core belief as letters editor is that healthy, informed debate is the lifeblood of a strong democracy. Other than that, I'm an avid Times reader, just like you. If what's in this newspaper interests you, it interests me. --  
     
    TOM FEYER



     

    Cli-fi and Eco-feminism: edited by Mary Phillips and Nick Rumens with papers by Erika Cudworth, Greta Gaard, Trish Glazebrook and Niamh Moore, among others

    Contemporary Perspectives on Ecofeminism (Hardback) book cover

    Contemporary Perspectives on Eco-feminism


    Cli-fi and Eco-feminism: edited by Mary Phillips and Nick Rumens with papers by Erika Cudworth, Greta Gaard, Trish Glazebrook and Niamh Moore, among others

    Edited by Mary Phillips, Nick Rumens

     

    About the Book

    Why is eco-feminism still needed to address the environmental emergencies and challenges of our times?
     
    Ecofeminism has a chequered history in terms of its popularity and its perceived value in conceptualizing the relationship between gender and nature as well as feeding forms of activism that aim to confront the environmental challenges of the moment.
     
    This book provides a much-needed comprehensive overview of the relevance and value of using eco-feminist theories.

    It gives a broad coverage of traditional and emerging eco-feminist theories and explores, across a range of chapters, their various contributions and uniquely spans various strands of ecofeminist thinking.

    The origins of influential eco-feminist theories are discussed including key themes and some of its leading figures (contributors include Erika Cudworth, Greta Gaard, Trish Glazebrook and Niamh Moore), and outlines its influence on how scholars might come to a more generative understanding of the natural environment.

    The book examines eco-feminism’s potential contribution for advancing current discussions and research on the relationships between the humans and more than humans that share our world.

    This timely volume makes a distinctive scholarly contribution and is a valuable resources for students and academics in the fields of environmentalism, cli-fi, political ecology, sustainability and nature resource management.

     

    © 2016 – Routledge
     

    Table of Contents

     
     9. From ‘Cli-Fi’ to Critical Ecofeminism: Narratives of Climate Change and Climate Justice by Professor Greta Gaard
     
     
    Introducing Contemporary Ecofeminism Mary Philips and Nick Rumens 

     Part 1 Theory 1. Eco/Feminist Genealogies: Renewing Promises and New Possibilities Niamh Moore 2. Ecofeminism and the Animal Erika Cudworth 3. Developing ecofeminist corporeality: Writing the body as activist poetics Mary Phillips 4. Regeneration in Limbo: Ecofeminist Perspectives on the Multiple Crisis and Social Contract Adelheid Biesecker and Uta v. Winterfeld 5. Exploring the Confluence of Ecofeminism, Covenantal Ethics, and Action Research Mary Brydon-Miller and Anne Inga Hilsen 

    Part 2 Practice 6. Climate Adaptation in the Global South: Funding Women’s Farming Trish Glazebrook 7: Hidden Lives, Invisible Vocation? Giving Voice to Game Rangers’ Wives in Kwazulu–Natal, South Africa Ida Sabelis, Tamarisk van Vliet and Harry Wels 8. The Township Gaze: A Postcolonial Ecofeminist Theory for Touring the New South Africa Laura Wright 

     9. From ‘Cli-Fi’ to Critical Ecofeminism: Narratives of Climate Change and Climate Justice by Professor Greta Gaard

    10. The Advantages of Gender theories in Analyses of Nature resource Management Christine Katz 11. Organizing and Managing Ecofeminism: Material Manifestations of Spiritual Principles in Business Ali Young and Scott Taylor

    234 pages | 1 B/W Illus.
    Purchasing Options:£ = GBP

    Hardback: 9781138019744
    pub: 2015-11-24
    £95.00
    x

    eBook (VitalSource) : 9781315778686
    pub: 2015-11-19
    from
    £34.99
    £24.49

    FREE Standard Shipping!

    About the Book

    Why is ecofeminism still needed to address the environmental emergencies and challenges of our times? Ecofeminism has a chequered history in terms of its popularity and its perceived value in conceptualizing the relationship between gender and nature as well as feeding forms of activism that aim to confront the environmental challenges of the moment.
    This book provides a much-needed comprehensive overview of the relevance and value of using eco-feminist theories. It gives a broad coverage of traditional and emerging eco-feminist theories and explores, across a range of chapters, their various contributions and uniquely spans various strands of ecofeminist thinking. The origins of influential eco-feminist theories are discussed including key themes and some of its leading figures (contributors include Erika Cudworth, Greta Gaard, Trish Glazebrook and Niamh Moore), and outlines its influence on how scholars might come to a more generative understanding of the natural environment. The book examines eco-feminism’s potential contribution for advancing current discussions and research on the relationships between the humans and more than humans that share our world.
    This timely volume makes a distinctive scholarly contribution and is a valuable resources for students and academics in the fields of environmentalism, political ecology, sustainability and nature resource management.

    Saturday, December 24, 2016

    Marching in the streets shouting climate change slogans at elected leaders will NOT make the difference. Acting to organize consumers locally, nationally, regionally and globally might.

    words by Bo Lidegaard, former editor of the Danish daily  newspaper ''Politiken''
     
     
     ''The fourth component of the “we” who must act are engaged consumers worldwide.
    Marching in the streets shouting slogans at elected leaders will NOT make the difference. Acting to organize consumers locally, nationally, regionally and globally might.
    The message needs to be sent not only by individual consumers, but also by organizations with the capacity to encourage and amplify the message: “We will NOT buy products and services defying the sustainability agenda, and we will *give preference* to quality products and brands that respect and promote sustainability.”
    Whatever form it takes, the message should be direct and transparent, and it should also target US corporations taking advantage of any relaxation of domestic environmental and emission standards.
    Many of us did not vote for Trump and not all of us are obliged to follow his lead. It is the other way around — the more strongly we organize to stay the course and reinforce action to halt global warming and promote sustainability, the more likely it will be that pragmatic members of the new majority can minimize the damage at home and abroad.''
    GOOGLE FOR FULL LINK to the OPED
     
     

    Why a genre called cli-fi? Here's why...

    "Genes resonate with people because of the familiarity, the shorthand communication, as well as the tendency to shift with and reflect the zeitgeist."

    Therefore: cli-fi.net