Someone Disagrees With Me on the Internet

OK, I think a lot of people disagree with me, but that’s not really the point. Renay over at Lady Business doesn’t like my review of Ancillary Justice by Ann Leckie. She disagrees with me (in fact a lot of people disagree with my opinion on that book), but that’s not really the point. She takes the biggest issue with how I end the review.

 

My ultimate takeway is simply this. Seeing this book get so many accolades, so much attention, only emphasizes just how stagnant SFF is as a genre. With relatively few exceptions, the genre that’s best suited to explore what’s possible, what should and should not be, what our own expectations say about us and everything in between doesn’t do any of that in regard to many fundamental aspects of our society. 

And I can’t decide if that depresses me or pisses me off.

 

Renay really disagrees with the idea of SFF as a stagnant genre and expands this to disagreement with the very commonly espoused idea that SFF is dead. Perhaps it’s mostly due a poor word choice on my part, but that’s not really the point I’m making here. The point I make stems from a rather simple observation – compare Ancillary Justice with pretty much any book that Ursual K. Le Guin wrote 40-50 years ago, but for simplicity’s sake, let’s say The Left Hand of Darkness (my review if you're interested to compare my thoughts of each). How much progress is evident from that simple comparison? EDIT: For a more in depth comparison of these two books check out this post on Tor.com./EDIT

 

It seems to me that there is relatively little progress evident in that specific direct comparison given all the actual social change that’s occurred in the nearly 50-year time period covered. Or to put it another way, after 50 years the same issues keep coming up over and over again. Sure, it’s great to point out that the baseline (or perhaps goalposts?) shift every time these issues come up. But at least from my point of view, I can’t help but feel a bit saddened by apparent lack of progress evident in the SFF genre over that time period (admittedly, from a single comparison).

 

To go back to that excerpt from my review, I do consider Ancillary Justice to be an exception to the ‘stagnation’ I reference. And that’s why it depresses me, because after 50 years (or more) of this repeating cycle, a book like Ancillary Justice is still an exception, something outside of the mainstream of the SFF genre, something different. And it shouldn’t be. Not by a long shot. That’s what really pisses me off.

 

And as award season ramps up, Ancillary Justice is proving to be a shortlist favorite – and has already won its first with the Kitchies. Now, I personally would not have nominated it (I don’t really nominate for any awards so it hardly matters), but I am pleased to see it on the lists. To me it shows that a growing and increasingly vocal part of fandom craves books that push boundaries and expectations, just as the best of the genre always has. So, while not my choice, I am happy to see it gaining attention over the same old, same old that often populates award shortlists.

 

Oh, and by the way, I still thought Ancillary Justice was boring and an overall mediocre book. But that doesn’t mean it’s not worth talking about.

 

 

 

*A note that I hesitate to even mention, but another unfortunate part in all this is some of the discussions I’ve seen on Twitter about my review – apparently writing the review I did has regulated me to being just another male critic who doesn’t get it. I find that reaction terribly hypocritical, but it’s also one I don’t plan on engaging any further than this note.

 

Author Gender and Review Blogs x2

Last week I wrote this post, where I point to this post that shows some statistics for SFF Review blogs about how many male authors are reviewed vs. female authors and compares those results with the gender of the bloggers. It's a good post and it's an important thing to remember, so I once again encourage all to read it.

 

Today I was bored, or more correctly procrastinating. So, I wanted to look at things a big differently. Basically, I looked at all the books I've received digitally and physically over the past 6 months or so and I noted the gender of the author. Now, this is not a good sample in that some of these books were requested, though the vast majority are not. Some of the digital books were purchased rather than provided, and with the digital books I often do more selecting rather than simply receiving. Also, there is some overlap where I have both digital and physical copies of books. None of those factors were controlled for, but I think that it doesn't take away from the overall numbers that certainly prove interesting.

 

In the last 6 months I've received 79 digital books and 103 physical books, for a total of 182 books.

 

Digital Books:

Total = 79

Male Author = 51

Female Author = 28

Percent Male = 65%

Percent Female = 35%

 

Physical Books:

Total = 103

Male Author = 77

Female Author = 26

Percent Male = 75%

Percent Female = 25%

 

All Books:

Total = 182

Male Author = 128

Female Author = 54

Percent Male = 70%

Percent Female = 30%

 

There are some interesting trends to note - the books that publishers choose to physically send me are overwhelmingly male authored, and more so than the digital books that I take a more active role in selecting. But, looking at the numbers here, it's not surprising that I read more male authors than female authors (last year I read about 65%-35% male to female authors). I'd have to work pretty hard to do otherwise. Now, obviously that statement comes with a lot caveats and such and does not take into account the hundreds of books I have at home to select from and such, but I still think it's not a coincidence.

 

Of course, if I read more male authors than female authors, it only makes sense for publishers to send me more books written by men, doesn't it? So, we come to a chicken/egg issue - do I read more male authors because that's what is sent to me, or do I get sent more male authors because I read more male authors? Sure, the answer is way more complicated, but I still think it's an important issue to look at.

 

But anyway, I think the take-home point should be this. If a goal is to get more reviews for SFF books authored by women, particularly for the case of male reviewers, then the problem become clear. No improvement will be made if the publishing machine (publicists, authors, editors, etc.) sends out books as they do now with 75% of them being authored by men and only 25% authored by women.

Author Gender and SFF Review Blogs

Lady Business has done a study of author gender and SFF review blogs again for 2012, as she did for 2011, though this time her sampling methods are more statistically robust and should paint a more representative picture of the state of things. The results are not surprising or mind boggling - if you are a male reviewer, you almost certainly review way more books authored by men then women. If you are a female reviewer, you are more likely to review a near equal number or more women authors than male authors. The numbers are striking and telling. Unfortunately it's the same old story.

 

And, yes, my blog was included in the study, and yes, my blog mirrors the overall trends. According to her numbers, 35% of the authors I reviewed were female (which is at least better than the average of 25% percent female authors for male reviewers). And just as a general FYI, for the 7+-year life of this blog - I've only reviewed about 20% female authors versus 80% male (so, the numbers show that my awareness of the issue is leading to change - which is good).

Anyway, I suggest that you read her post and think on it. It's an important issue and she does a great job of showing why. Especially if you are a male reader/reviewer - think on it.

Sort-of Review: Fortress Frontier by Myke Cole

After reading Myke Cole’s debut, Shadow Ops: Control Point (my review, Indiebound, Book Depository, Amazon) in 2012, the sequel, Shadow Ops: Fortress Frontier (Indiebound, Book Depository, Amazon) immediately became a must-read for me. However I can’t help but notice that everyone else seems to think as highly of Cole as I do – a quick check of blogs that I follow will find that most have reviewed Fortress Frontier already. And generally, I agree with what they say – it’s a great book. It’s an improvement over Control Point, and the new protagonist is one I like a lot better. The world is bigger, the adventure more epic, and the depth of thought is still there. I called Shadow Ops this generation’s The Forever War, and with the sequel, these books really are a story for the current generation, one that struggles with the might of the government, the threat of terrorism, and the loss of freedom. These books make me think.

 

But, the review saturation had sapped my enthusiasm for writing a review. I couldn’t find anything new to add to the conversation. Yep, Cole is awesome, the book is awesome, go read it. Do I really need to say it too?

 

So, I’ve thought about things and then my contribution to the conversation finally clicked into place. I imagine I was somewhat inspired by this review over at Tor.com. There is a short discussion of criticism of the book, which stands out because of the relative lack of them in reviews for Fortress Frontier. The discussion mentions that Cole’s world is a man’s world with relatively few female characters (dare I use the word ‘token’?). Well, that’s not my focus here, but it’s certainly worth noting and discussing in its own right.

 

A common thread through all of those reviews I’ve mentioned above is that they like the protagonist (Colonel Bookbinder) that Cole focuses on in Fortress Frontier a lot better than the protagonist (Oscar) from Shadow Ops. I share this feeling – I enjoyed Bookbinder much more. If you go back and search out reviews of Shadow Ops, the biggest criticism that you’re going to come across is a dislike for Oscar. Take another look at all these reviews I’m mentioning – they are written by white people*. Take a look at Bookbinder (white) and Oscar (black). Now, there are lots of reasons why I think Bookbinder is a character that more can relate to. There are lots of examples of Cole simply improving as a writer. But I’m not going to talk about any of them. I’m simply going to point this out – the near-universal opinion that Bookbinder is a more enjoyable protagonist than Oscar is essentially has a direct correlation to race.

 

Tell me I imagining things. Tell me that it’s a coincidence and not real (after all, remember, I’m a white guy who likes Bookbinder a lot more as well). But, the more I think on it, the more troubled I am about it.

 

And do you know what? This is just one way that Myke Cole’s books have got me thinking. It may not be what he intended (or hell, maybe it is), but it’s there. And it’s yet another reason why people should read his books. In my review of Control Point I compared Cole with Haldeman. I’ll make another comparison now (and I try to never make comparisons in reviews, but I’ve got to mix things up too) – Myke Cole is the most exciting SFF author to come along since Joe Abercrombie. And considering all the great authors that have entered the scene over the past few years, that’s high praise.

 

*Admittedly, just how many SFF review bloggers out there aren’t white?

A Memory of Light Spoiler Reactions

For whatever reason, I’m going even further afield than usual with my ‘review’ of A Memory of Light by Robert Jordan and Brandon Sanderson (my ‘non-spoiler’ review, Indiebound, Book Depository, Amazon). This post (below the cut) is basically a point-by-point reaction to some of the events of AMOL. It’s full of spoilers and if you read them, it will tell you how the book ends and many of the happenings along the way. It’s very colloquial and informal, so comment in kind. Beware, the book is spoiled here and I’ll make no apologies to anyone who gets upset reading this post and whatever discussion follows because some spoiler is revealed. So, take a look and then share what you think. If you prefer, my non-spoiler review is here.

 

Now, let’s get to it…. 

 

1. As I’ve watched the reactions to the ‘Memories of Time’ released by Tor, I’ve had my own little version of how Team Jordan must experience the world. Yes, sometimes the reactions are spot on. But more often than not, they go way wrong. Crazy. It’s amazing to see how things go when I’m thinking the answer was so clearly obvious, but then people take it opposite direction.  
2. Talmanes in the prologue is awesome. Many have issues with what Sanderson has done with The Wheel of Time since taking on the near-impossible task of finishing the series in a way that fans can love, and some of those issues are very real, but sometimes Sanderson has improved things. Talmanes is one area. He takes a character who was cardboard and barely worth mentioning and grows him into someone likeable, humorous, subtle and heroic. It was fun reading his leading the battle of Caemlyn. Though he should have died. He should not have been healed to fight again. And I tire of the new titles that seemingly come out of nowhere – Dreadbane. Seriously, that’s terrible.
3. Androl – I like him and Pevara more and more. Obviously Sanderson does as well. I wonder how much of Androl is a reaction to reading what fans have written. The potential tactical use of gateways – we see it. Opening a gateway into a volcano to destroy trollocs, opening a gateway in front of an attacker to behind the attacker so they kill themselves. Precise use of gateways as weapons. These are cool. I wanted more. But he was ultimately mishandled. He just sort of fades away in the Last Battle. He either should have gone out with a real bang…or something. By the end he just sort of hangs on.
4. Moiraine. So, he needed her to convince Egwene to sign the Dragon’s Peace. And then again as a link with callandor. She still felt strangely absent toward the end. And why didn’t we get a Moiraine vs. Cadsuane scene.
5. Demandred. I love that he wasn’t Roedran like so many thought. I loathed the lack of subtly with which Sanderson handled it. Too much of a nod to theorists, too much of a breaking of the 4^th wall. But Shara? The set up for that could have been handled much better. Perhaps another example of Jordan being too subtle in earlier books. Perhaps an attempt for readers to be as surprised as those fighting the battles. While I like that it gave the forces of the dark an edge, it was ultimately mishandled.
6. More Demandred. He plays the big role in The Last Battle. But I’d have liked to know more earlier. What we see earlier was either wrong or painfully incomplete. Who knew that Demandred was bat-shit insane? As insane as Rand in his own way. He was always supposed to be the cold, calculating bad guy. Another place things didn’t go as well as they should have.
7. Mat. Everyone’s favorite. This won’t change. His leading of the last battle was awesome! I like how all the great captains were taken out, how the forces of the dark manipulated them. I like how it took some doing to get Mat into the leadership place he was. Only Mat could have won the battle.
8. Really, Mat and Rand in a bragging battle? As amusing as it was, it didn’t work for me. Another too big of a nod to the fans.
9. Horn of Valere. Excellent – most everyone thought Mat needed to blow it. Everyone was wrong. His ties were broken. Olver has a place. I love that Noal was a hero. That Birgitte comes back just after her death. Hawkwing and Matt don’t get along. Good stuff. Hero wolves? Oh well, don’t feel strongly one way or another.
10. Lanfear – I love that she helps Perrin. I love that she’s a wildcard. We don’t know what’s going on with her…until the very end.
11. Perrin. Good fighting, continues his growth. Awesome to see him finally let go. But really…he couldn’t kill Graendal because she’s a woman. Please. I thought we were past this. This must have been an RJ plot piece, one that should have been fixed. Though I suppose you had to have some good forsaken fighting going on.
12. Fain. Thank god he didn’t end up as the Gollum of WOT. I love that every theory I ever read on his place in the Last Battle was wrong. I actually love that all of the build-up, all of the hints of bad things, go nowhere. That Mat walks right into the mist, and kills him. Easy as pie. How wrong we all were, but so obvious in retrospect. The series needed a nice little Red Herring and Fain served well. Now, was Mat’s luck tied to the evil of Fain? The dice stopped.
13. Along those lines – it’s all over. Our three ta’veren are probably not ta’veren anymore. Does Mat still have is luck? What about everyone always falling in line with Perrin? Of course we have no answers, but it’s something to think about.
14. So many hate Egwene, even more so since Sanderson has taken the helm. While I can’t say that I always like her, I don’t agree with the hatred. The accusations of Mary Sue. Etc. She dies, she dies as she creates. The Amyrlin dies as she kills the M’hael. Nice balance. 
15. Cadsuane. I would have like to see more of her during the Last Battle. A good fight scene or two during the battle. Opportunity lost with all those wonderful toys. I did not expect her to survive. Neither did she. Amyrlin? I laughed.
16. Logain. Not the lovable leader many have made him out to be. Of course he was very nearly turned and there were consequences. But, is it a surprise that he did the right thing in the end? Cadsuane and Logain, White Tower and Black Tower. I think I’d like to see that.
17. Thank the lord that Nynaeve didn’t heal death. I was very surprised that she never got time with Lan prior to the end. That was proof enough for me that Lan wouldn’t die. Though him killing Demandred…man, Niagara Falls baby. When he stood up with Demandred’s head I thought for sure he was a hero of the horn returned. He was always one I expected to die, but thought would live (if that makes any sense).
18. Siuan dead. Expected. Actually not too saddened as it was appropriate. But I would have liked to have seen a POV from Bryne at that moment. I would have liked that decent into madness and death charge. Really, it could have been done in half a page – why not?
19. Gawyn dead, Galad almost dead. Well, Gawyn should have died a long time ago. Not sad about it. He was incredibly stupid and flawed all the way to the end. Galad – I don’t think I’m upset we never got the Rand-Galad reunion. But I sort of wish he had died as well. For a minute I was waiting for a Tam takes on Demandred moment, where Tam succeeds. It would have been a nice thematic arc to the book and appropriate end to Demandred and Tam. But Lan did fine.
20. Ituralde. I always like that guy. In my mind, clearly the best of the great captains. I wish we would have had more of him. I would have loved to see him and Matt in command together. I’m glad he lived though.
21. So, two forsaken survive. Graendal and Moghedien. What will Avi do with a forsaken lapdog. What with Seanchan do with a forsaken and damane – and one from Shara as well? Oh, those outrigger novels would have been so much fun.
22. So, just who is this old Aiel woman who has appeared twice now? She visited Aviendha in the waste and now Rand just after he seals up the DO. It appears that TAR is involved, but that’s not necessarily the case. Is this the creator?
23. Oh the ending. First, the last word was not ‘time’, but ‘ending’. I can see how that scene began it all, though it’s certainly an odd one if you step back from WOT. The hero of the world steals a horse and runs away from his 3 wives and all the other forces of good. Oh, and he has a new body – that of the bad guy. That actually sounds pretty terrible when put that way. But, it fits. It’s beautifully written and I was bawling. In retrospect I can’t help but hear the Randland stories of Elvis/Jesus/Mary/Jim Morrison/Johnny Appleseed being spotted around the world. Or, maybe he’s Tom Bombadil, traveling the world in song and making the green things greener and everyone happy and gay. That’s it, Rand was always Tom Bombadil. Yes, my sense of humor is terrible.
24. Now that I’ve read it all and finally know how it turns out. I’m incredibly torn. I want more. I want the prequels. I want those auxiliary novels with Mat and Tuon returning to Seanchan. I want more short stories and novellas. I want to read more. I don’t want it to be over. But, the end was perfect and appropriate. As much as I want all those things, I want all of The Wheel of Time to end as it did.

EDIT: Thanks to the folks over at Macmillan Audio I have an audio sample from Chapter 3 to share with (no big spoilers). I love the audiobooks and have been using them as 're-reads' for years, so give it a shot.

Fake Reviews - They're Everywhere

So, most of us have always suspected that many of the reviews in places like Amazon are fake, but now it's finally making the headlines. The NY Times showcases a fake review factory and how reviews are bought and paid for. And now Forbes discusses just how prevelent they are at Amazon and how much harm they do.

 

This is why I don't read Amazon reviews. It's one of the reasons why I don't post my reviews on Amazon. My advice - find a few good reviewers you trust and stick with them.

 

Thoughts?

Author Intent versus Fan Desires

Or why fans hate Steven Erikson’s inconsistencies and Erikson doesn’t care

 

This is a rant that has been building in me for years now. And it is a rant that I think many readers of this blog will disagree with, perhaps quite vehemently, as I unapologetically scream that fantasy fans are way too often rigid, short-sighted idiots who willingly choose to ignore the point of the books they read.

 

Throughout the Malazan series there are inconsistencies, particularly in regards to the timeline. Characters appear who are much older than they should be, timings within the books don’t line up, characters will think of events that haven’t happened yet, etc. Whether such things began as intentional or not, they have persisted, and many of the Malazan fans have gritted their teeth, pulled their hair out and screamed aloud of the problems of these issues. Some have even stopped reading Erikson altogether due to these inconsistencies (and Erikson’s reactions to them). Along with these inconsistencies comes further complaint about a lot the more philosophical aspects of Erikson’s writing. Especially, the long, rambling and sometimes evangelical way they can be presented in.  

 

Erikson is often asked about these and his response has remained consistent, though the tone and personal wear of his response has varied. He is not bothered by them, and in some cases things were deliberately chosen in spite of the inconstancies with the story that has come before. There are good reasons for why he’s not bothered, though many fans choose to ignore them do their own perspectives. First, Erikson is an archeologist and therefore a student of history, long history. He knows that facts are in the eye of the beholder, perspective rules and that no history, however complete, is perfectly consistent. Nor is the world he creates.

 

Furthermore, Erikson is not after a consistent world creation or perfectly derived lists of characters and events. He is all about exploration of the human condition, as well as exploitation and exposition of the fantasy genre. He is intentionally subversive in his writing and often flat-out derisive. He will spit in the face of the reader to make his point, and that is often his point. And the reader’s journey is more complete for it.

 

But this is lost. His continued answers in interviews are lost. Eventually, he began inserting meta commentary of this in his writing (see my reviews of Toll the Hounds and Crack’d Pot Trail).  He seems haunted by the issue, though unmoved in his position. And he continues in Forge of Darkness (Indiebound, Book Depository, Amazon), even doubling down. Below are a series of quotes – one from an interview and the others from the book.  

 

“Histories hide behind other histories, and this Kharkanas trilogy is a layer pulled back, but even there it’s not structured as ‘this is precisely what happened back then.’ Rather, it is a tale deliberately reshaped by the narrator, for motives entirely his own. This detail allowed me to stay fresh in creating the tale, without being too tightly bound to any kind of objective reality.”

-SFF World Interview

 

Let me ask you this, then. Does one find memory in invention? Or will you find invention in memory? Which bows in servitude before the other? Will the measure of greatness be weighted solely in the details? Perhaps so, if the details make up the full weft of the world, if themes are nothing more than the composite of lists perfectly ordered and unerringly rendered; and if I should kneel before invention, as if it were made perfect.

 

Do I look like a man who would kneel?

…

Is my laughter cynical? Derisive? Do I sigh and remind myself yet again that truths are like seeds hidden in the ground, and should you tend them who may say what wild life will spring into view?

…

Should you err, the list-makers will eat you alive.

-Prelude

 

“I am satisfied to think of writing as a desire worth having, whereas its practical exercise is a turgid ordeal I leave to lesser folk, since I have better things to do with the sentient fragments of my brain.”

 

“Thus the argument of a thousand useless geniuses, each one quick to venture an opinion, particularly a negative one, since by their own negativity they can justify doing nothing but complain.”

 Varandas and Haut, p. 496-497

 

As a reader, do the quotes above enrage you or make you laugh? I think it’s a critical question for those who read Erikson’s writing. Erikson writes with a purpose, a purpose often in contrast to reader’s expectations. He’s unapologetic about his purpose. Readers react, some leave, yet many still read. Many will call me an apologist (or worst) in my siding with Erikson on this. Because the inconsistencies don’t matter. They aren’t the point. Look deeper. Read deeper. Forget the lists. Look for the point of it all.

 

And if you find it, let me know. Because I’ll freely admit that I’m still looking – I’ve found much, but the joy is that there is always more to find. And that is the point.

 

And now that it’s time to wind down my rant as become a bit milder it’s time to quote Erikson yet again from an essay recently posted at Tor.com.

 

To be honest, a part of me wants to reach through the inter-ether, close hands on neck, and shout TRUST ME!

 

And while that may seem a bit conciliatory, he can’t help but follow up with

While another part of me, railing even louder in my mind, wants to add a brain-rattling shake and say IT’S NOT AS IMPORTANT AS YOU THINK!

 

But, read the essay, it’s not as bad as it seems with those out-of-context quotes.

Who Is K.J. Parker?

K.J. Parker is a critically-acclaimed, best-selling author of fantasy fiction. However, K.J. Parker is a pseudonym, and unlike many pseudonyms that are essentially open secrets to anyone who digs, the identity of K.J. Parker remains a mystery. In fact, it is not even known if K.J. Parker is male or female. The Wikipedia entry and theories below go into more detail.

**UPDATE, April 21, 2015: K.J. Parker's ID has been revealed, one of our contributors pretty well nailed it**

The internet being what it is and fantasy fans being who they are, conversations on K.J. Parker’s identity are somewhat common on forums, Twitter, Facebook, blogs, etc. A recent Twitter conversation of such has led to this post, with several SFF bloggers offering up their ideas on who K.J. Parker is. Speculation ranges from very well though-out ideas that use what evidence is available to what are essentially wild-ass guesses. We tried to get a comment from a representative from Parker’s publisher, Orbit, to give a comment, but we didn't receive one in a timely manner.

Make of this post what you will. On one hand it’s a (small) internet campaign to figure out the identity of K.J. Parker, though it’s mostly just a bunch of fun speculation among a few SFF fans and bloggers. The truth is that we all respect the privacy of K.J. Parker and his/her desire to remain anonymous, however our curiosity cannot be denied.

On to the theories….

Jared @ Pornokitch:

Here's what we know:

The big stuff:

- Married to a solicitor (1)

- Lives in southern England (1)
- Worked in law, journalism, numismatics (1)
- Bit of a crafty geek: building things of wood, metal (1)
- First published (as Parker) in 1998 (1)

The more specific stuff:

- Not Tom Holt (2)

- Raised in Vermont (3)

The conflicting stuff:

- Male! (4)

- Female! (5)

Stuff I can add myself:

- Based on an inscription in one of my books, KJ Parker can use a semi-colon correctly (6)

- Parker gets both American and English idioms; something that comes across naturally in the work (7)

Oh, and the bit that everyone takes for granted:

- KJ Parker is a pseudonym (8)

However, we also know a lot about Parker from the primary sources. What we know about Parker appears in the books - the time in a foundry, the professional background, even the numismatics (The Folding Knife). So what if we stretch this a bit more. From the Scavenger Trilogy and Purple & Black, as well as the short stories, there's quite a bit in there about very old, very formal and very posh universities - including several instances of a middle class protagonist being surrounded by the scions of the upper crust. So why not put Parker at Oxford or Cambridge? (9)

Another fascinating twist - "A Small Price to Pay for Birdsong" - involves a creator (a composer) publishing the work of another composer, and feeling imprisoned, then freed by the experience. (10) Following on from that, KJ Parker's real name is, probably, a published writer - not a journalist, but an author. Following the "Birdsong" theory, the "real" Parker was possibly already famous before the first "Parker" book, but now "Parker" is the more popular name. Controversial! (11)

So, in conclusion:

I have no idea. (12)

----

Footnotes:

(1): About the author, UK editions of Parker's books

(2): Two sources - first, taking the Tom Holt/KJ Parker interview at face value. (http://subterraneanpress.com/index.php/magazine/summer-2010/interview-with-k-j-parker-by-tom-holt/) Second, a statement from William Schafer (Parker's publisher at Subterranean) declaring that Parker absolutely was not Holt.
(3): Have to admit, this one is new to me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._J._Parker#cite_note-1 - but I'm not sure why an Australian SF/F magazine, no matter how reputable, would have/share more detailed information than anyone else. Incidentally, SF/F authors from Vermont that kinda fit the profile? Michael Stackpole (hmm) and Piers Anthony (YIKES).
(4): http://www.sffworld.com/interview/85p0.html - and many other reviews
(5): About the author notes on the Bragelonne editions of Parker's Fencer trilogy. (#YesIhavetheFrencheditions and #noIamnotcompletelyobsessed)
(6): Seriously, that removes, what, 99.885% of the English-speaking world?
(7): No, really. Anne spotted this, and it makes sense.
(8): Weirdly, not written down in a lot of places - but it is there on the US The Company, as well as in the Parker/Holt interview
(9): Holt, for the record, is a graduate of Wadham College, Oxford. The two say they met at their local blacksmith's shop, which could've taken place while they were students...
(10): It is a bit more complex than that, but, whatever. It is free online, go read it yourself. (http://subterraneanpress.com/index.php/magazine/winter-2011/fiction-a-small-price-to-pay-for-birdsong-by-k-j-parker/)
(11): A bit like The Dark Half, really.
(12): And you know what? I kind of don't want to, either. Not to go all "death of the author", but KJ Parker's work has made Parker my favourite author - there's nothing that Parker him/herself could add into the mix to make me appreciate the books more.  

Justin @ Staffer’s BookReview and Occasional Musings:

I believe KJ Parker is none other than J.K Rowling. My reasoning... KJ is an obvious reversal of JK. Harry Potter was first published in 1995. In order to avoid the backlash of writing other things from hordes of unstable preteen psychos, Rowling published under Parker in 1998. I fully expect Rowling to admit this fact when her new adult novel is released by Little, Brown in 2013!

Bastard @ Bastard Books:

Robert Stanek (Bastard has not read any K.J. Parker books)

Ken @ Neth Space:

This falls much closer to the wild-ass guess than anything else. I blatantly ignore the known ‘evidence’ discussed here and elsewhere and use lots of second-hand ‘hearsay’.

My guess on the ID of K.J. Parker is that he is no other than best-selling author R.A. Salvatore. I’ve ‘heard’ from a couple of people who are friends with Salvatore that he writes other fantasy novels under a pseudonym, and that pseudonym is not known. I’ve been told that it would likely be a surprising revelation based on the fiction that Salvatore is best known for. And…this is the most damning evidence of all…both Parker and Salvatore publish under initials – K.J. and R.A., respectively.

Ole @ Weirdmage’s Reviews:

Is K.J. Parker a man or a woman?

This is a question that seems to come up in online debates from time to time. Usually it ends up with a teneous conclusion that Tom Holt is K.J. Parker. I tend to think it’s a little bit more complex than that. I will come to my theory later, but first I’ll look into the relationship between K.J. Parker and Tom Holt.

That there is a close relationship between K.J. Parker and Tom Holt is clear from this interview: http://subterraneanpress.com/index.php/magazine/summer-2010/interview-with-k-j-parker-by-tom-holt/

Here’s an important passage:

TH: For the record, we’ve known each other for years, you showed me your first novel, I showed it to my agent, he sold it to Orbit. Is that about right?

KJP: Yes.

Of course if Tom Holt is K.J. Parker, this is completely made up. But let’s look at the two authors biographies. (Some of this is also in the interview.)

According to Holt’s official biography, http://www.tom-holt.com/about.htm , he’s married, has a daughter, and lives in Somerset in the UK. According to Parker’s official biography (the one printed in the books), Parker lives in southern England.

So, they both live in the same part of England. Doesn’t really prove anything, but there is more.

Holt has been a solicitor...K.J. Parker is married to a solicitor. Which is basically the basis of my theory. Tom Holt is married to K.J. Parker. This would explain why, as in the quote above, Holt read Parker’s first book and showed it to his agent.

There is some more circumstantial evidence to supprt this. Namely Tom Holt’s books. I have the first six “Tom Holt Omnibus” volumes. They contain twelve novels. Five of the novels are copyrighted to Kim Holt. And four of the volumes, 1/3/4/6, are copyrighted to Tom and Kim Holt. So it seems that they are at least two different people. And my theory is that K.J. Parker is Kim Holt, Kim J. Parker may even be her maiden name. Parker does say in the interview sited above that “Unfortunately, I was KJP while JKR was still nursing a lukewarm latte in the coffee bars of Edinburgh.” The first K.J. Parker book was published in 1998.

An interesting aside to my theory, is that Tom and Kim Holt may have functioned as a husband and wife writing team, much like David and Leigh Eddings. They may still do, maybe all Tom Holt and K.J. Parker books are written by them together. Or maybe it even could be that Tom Holt is a front, and Kim Holt has written all the books. In the interview Parker says: “I don’t do interviews or publicity stuff with, well, strangers, essentially. Not the world’s most articulate person, with people I don’t know.”

I could off course be incorrect, and Tom Holt is really the man behind the K.J. Parker pseudonym. Giving his wife, or it may even be his daughter, copyright credit on his books for financial/inheritance reasons. But from the evidence I have, I’ll go with K.J. Parker being Kim Holt, Tom Holt’s wife.

Thoughts and Links

I don't typically do link posts these days, but I've seen a lot of fun and interesting things, so I decided it was worth a full post.

• Apparently a few copies of A Dance With Dragons by George R.R. Martin  (Book Depository, Powell's Books, Indiebound) got shipped early by Amazon in Germany and fans are anxious, spoilers are appearing, and bunch of folks have their panties in a bunch. Oh well, I find it amusing, but I can see the issues.

• China Mieville created a monster for Mark Charan Newton - how cool is that!

• I can't say that I watch much many beauty pageants so it's through the links of others that I found out that the latest Miss USA show actually asked contestants if evolution should be taught in schools. As a scientist (and also as a religious person) I find the very concept horrifying and fear the future of a country that refuses to believe in science. Thankfully I'm not alone, and others are much more humorous than I - should math be taught in schools? (trust me, it's brilliant) Oh, and the actual winner was one of the few who stood up for evolution (and she's a big fan of George R.R. Martin).

• I posted a mini-review* of Wolfsangel by M.D. Lachlan (Book Depository, Powell's Books, Indiebound) last night. The good folks over at @tordotfantasy retweeted the link. Apparently M.D. Lachlan (@mdlachlan) - a pseudonym for author Mark Barrowcliffe - didn't like that @tordotfantasy would tweet an ultimately negative review. I find that sort of public reaction fascinating, amusing and a bit troubling and unprofessional. I also find it troubling that @tordotfantasy quickly tweeted a link to a more positive review that Lachlan suggested. It's not so much that @tordotfantasy tweeted another review, it's the apparent influence that the author has. The inevitable question is do authors advocate for what reviews get tweeted (or not) for folks like this?

• I've always considered Orson Scott Card to be a real asshat, but this old article that is new to me really brings home the point - oh, and it's entirely possible that OSC didn't actually write Ender's Game, which it turns out is basically retelling of the life of Hitler (according to the article anyway).

*For me, a mini-review is something short and to the point. There is very little detail or supporting evidence, just my quick opinion of a book. Basically, either I don't have the time or I don't have the inclination to write a full review.