Around the World and Home Again: Just got back from a week in Pennsylvania at the inlaws.

I hope the Internet managed to get along in my absence.

More Linkage: Good list of resources over at Spec Fic World.

I really liked this Damon Knight article on plot. You know Damon Knight, whether you realize it or not--he wrote all the cool SciFi stories that became Twilight Zone episodes, like "To Serve Man".

This is also a good article on Writing Mistakes.

Censorship: Alright, I'm finally going to say something about the halftime show.

Nhan, this week's guest blogger at ::Freespace:: posted a cute and link-intensive post that represents what pretty much all Janet's defenders are saying.

"You think that's bad? Don't you know what else is on TV?"

Among the shows he touts as being worse than Janet is What Not to Wear , appropriate because in this case, there was something Janet should have worn.

But the reality is, his post is griping about what TV is teaching, and those upset about the halftime show are griping about what Janet actually did.

What's the difference?

Nobody anywhere would tell you that you couldn't stand around in Central Park discussing the positive aspects of nudity. You could stand on a table and make a call to all mankind to live a nudist lifestyle, and the first amendment says you can say it. You have the right to teach and say whatever you want.

But if you actually start taking off your clothes, you and law enforcement will have a problem.

It's the same way with television. The FCC should never step in and stop anybody from teaching anything they want on TV. That's what the first amendment protects, whether anybody likes it or not.

However, broadcast channels are public, and therefore they should be treated like public places. That's why the FCC has the right to interfere with what's actually done on TV. If you can't do it in a public park, then the FCC has the right to get involved if you do it on TV.

Now this gets into a hairy area. For instance, you can't kill anybody in a public park, but it's probably okay to do it on TV. This is largely because the violence on TV is simulated, therefore nothing really wrong is done. It would be like faking a killing in central park. The cops would think you were weird, but you wouldn't go to jail for murder.

But what about sex? Isn't that simulated on TV, too?

But remember, the couple in the park isn't being arrested for having sex. They're getting arrested for a lewd public display. No actual sex has to take place to meet that criteria.

And again, this law would probably be applied differently in Central Park than in, say, a bad part of some seedy neighborhood.

In this case, the Superbowl is the equivalent of Central Park on the first day of summer.

This doesn't apply to cable channels. Those are like private residences or clubs. You have to pay to get in.

But for broadcast channels, public decency laws apply. Sex, swearing, the whole shebang.

The first amendment covers you if you talk about something that's wrong. It even covers you if you advocate something that's wrong. But it doesn't cover you if you actually do something wrong.

And I think it's really obvious that in this case, Janet wasn't covered.

Ergo?: As for what do about Janet, I think the answer is simple. Take whatever was done to the third quarter streaker, divide it by the number of people who saw him, and then multiply it by the number of people who saw Janet.

The Ender Movie: Linkage to The Philotic Web, who report the X2 guys are rewriting the Ender's Game movie.

Am I excited? I'm optimistically reserving judgment. But statements like this make me hopeful:

"My parents gave me the book when I was a kid, and it is the reason I fell in love with science fiction and is somewhat responsible for what I am doing for a career," Harris said. "It taught me how to create great characters within an outer space world. There are real wars and battles here, so it's not a kid movie, but what makes the story beautiful is that this adult world is seen through a kid`s eyes. I`d always wondered why it had never been made into a movie."

Update: More info, along with quotes from Card, at the production company's website.

Public Displays of Rejection: Check out Rejection Collection, which I found out about here, which I was showed by Rick Walton.

The first is a site where people complain about how they were treated by editors. The second is a review of said site, which tries to bring the wrist slitters who post there back to reality a bit. And the last is an entertaining children's book author who is extremely funny and helpful.

What Are You?: A couple of Variety articles on the new Batman movie. I'm very pleased they're getting away from the hyped-up, cartoonish Joel Schumacher Batman, and getting back to the core of the character--

A guy who dresses up in a bat suit and beats people up.

Stick It In Your Ear:While starting to update my linkage (to the right) I remembered they have the old Infocom Hitchkiker's Guide to the Galaxy game on the Douglas Adams website. Go play the hardest text adventure ever.

Try "turn on lights" to start.

This Baby Done Wet On Me: While trying to explain the title of the They Might Be Giants Album to somebody, I came across this great site about John Henry.

The Brilliant Criminal Mind: Captured on video.

2003 Locus List: Locus magazine has posted their recommended reading list for 2003. Not only am I not on it, I've only read a couple of things on it. Two short stories, a novelette, and one Fantasy Novel.

To give you some idea, they're touting David Harwell's Year's Best 8, when I just picked up Year's Best 7 in a bargain bookstore last week.

And to think I used to be so with-it.

Why do they keep changing what "it" is?