As the Romans cooked

Donald got two Roman cookbooks for his last birthday, to add to our collection.  The Classical Cookbook, by Andrew Dalby and Sally Grainger, includes both ancient Greek and ancient Roman recipes; Cooking Apicius, by Grainger, is a selection of modernized recipes from the only extant ancient Roman cooking manual.

I already owned Mark Grant’s Roman Cookery, Ilaria Gozzini Giacosa’s A Taste of Ancient Rome (translated by Anna Herklotz), and Joseph Dommers Vehling’s 1936 translation of the Apicius manual.

I had found Giacosa’s cookbook more useful and authentic than Grant’s.  Both consist of recipes adapted for a modern kitchen, inspired by ancient food, but Giacosa always starts with the original Latin text for a recipe (usually from Apicius, but occasionally from Cato’s or Columella’s treatises on agriculture).  Then she provides a translation, then a modernized recipe.  This way, you can see her thought process in developing the final recipe.

Grant’s cookbook doesn’t always provide such clear antecedents, and I’m not as happy with his ingredient substitutions.  He calls for Cheddar in numerous recipes where ricotta, feta, or a simple goat cheese would probably be more authentic.  The ancient Romans used the milk of sheep and goats, but not cows’ milk.  However, the real fatal flaw is his use of meat stock made from bouillon cubes.  I can’t take any cookbook author who recommends bouillon cubes seriously.*

We did try one recipe from Grant’s cookbook, the one for hydromel, or honey water.  It wasn’t very successful, but I don’t think it’s entirely his fault, as it’s actually one of his most historically authentic recipes, reproducing the exact proportions suggested by Bassus in Country Matters (3:2:1 water/honey/apple juice).  It was far too sweet, even diluted with 3 parts water.  However, as Donald describes on his blog, we were able to salvage it by adding apple cider vinegar.  As I know from wine tasting, sweet drinks aren’t as cloying if they also contain enough acid to balance the sugar.  I’m not sure if the recipe didn’t work because ancient Roman apple juice wasn’t as sweet as modern apple cider, or if the Romans just had a major sweet tooth.  (I should point out that Donald prepared this recipe; he suggested elsewhere on his blog that I may not have been adequately crediting his contributions to our Roman dinners.)

Giacosa’s cookbook tends to suggest ricotta when an ancient recipe calls for cheese, and allows the cook to decide how they’re going to prepare their stock.  The recipes generally sound more authentic, and more likely to taste good.  Donald and I have prepared her pork stew with apples, and globi.  The pork stew is from Apicius, and the globi are a dessert fritter from Cato.  Both were fairly successful, and I’ve written about this meal elsewhere on my blog.

I do think that she’s off with her proportions for the pork stew, not enough herb and spice, and too much defrutum (concentrated wine or grape syrup) for sweetening.  Since the original recipes rarely give quantities of ingredients, it really is up to the cook’s discretion.  However, the Latin text calls for “a bit of defrutum“, which Giacosa interprets to mean 1/2 cup for about 2 pounds of meat and a pound of apples.  Donald and I probably didn’t use the best substitute for defrutum.  We used grape juice concentrate from a winemaking store, which I suspect was too sweet and concentrated.  Even so, defrutum was probably very sweet and syrupy, like expensive balsamic vinegar or the Italian sapa you can sometimes buy from specialty food stores.  1/2 cup is a lot.

Another issue is that, throughout her cookbook, Giacosa suggests substituting the juice of pressed garlic cloves for laser or laser root.  This may have been necessary in 1986 when her book was first published, in Italy.  But it isn’t necessary today for anyone with access to an Indian grocery store (either in their city or online).  Laser originally meant silphium, an aromatic plant that became extinct about 2000 years ago, but by the time the Apicius recipes were being written down, cooks were using asafoetida as a substitute.  You may not even need an Indian grocery to find asafoetida.  I have a bottle I purchased at Whole Foods.

Donald and I haven’t tried any recipes from The Classical Cookbook, but I’ve prepared several dishes from Cooking Apicius:  lamb faggots (the cookbook was published in Britain; the American translation of Giacosa’s cookbook uses the less unfortunate term “meat patties” for the Latin isicia), prawn (shrimp) balls in hydrogarum, toasted pine kernel sauce for roast wild boar or pork (I served it with pan-fried pork chops), offellae Ostian style, offellae Apician style (offellae are chunks of roasted or grilled pork belly), spring cabbage with cumin, parsnips in a cumin honey glaze, sauce for fried gourd (accompanied by fried gourd), and deep-fried honey fritters.  Everything has been quite good, the pork belly recipes in particular having been big hits at dinner parties or potlucks.  If anything, compared to Giacosa, Grainger has an excessively liberal hand with the spicing.  I think she puts in way too much cumin, in particular.  It may be that the cumin I buy is especially fresh and flavorful; or it may be that I just don’t like cumin as much as she does.  Her recipes have a lot of pepper, too, but, judging from our experience with conditum paradoxum, one of the few Apicius recipes to provide quantities, Romans liked their pepper.

Grainger doesn’t mess around with trying to substitute garlic for laser; she tells you to get yourself some asafoetida, as you should.  And, unlike both Grant and Giacosa, she acknowledges that the ancient Romans did not have zucchini or butternut squash (both New World vegetables unknown in Rome prior to the 16th century), and that Apician references to cucurbitas were to Old World gourds.  I used opo squash, which is often used today in Indian cooking.  It’s not that unlike zucchini, but if you’re trying for some degree of authenticity, you definitely shouldn’t be using any of the yellow or orange winter squashes.

So, I have to say, Sally Grainger wins the Roman cookbook prize.  Donald and I were so impressed with Cooking Apicius that we decided to purchase Grainger and Grocock’s complete English translation of the Apicius manual (“A Critical Edition with an Introduction and English Translation”), which has the Latin on one side, English on the facing page, and notes and appendices that take up more space than the actual text.

Cooking Apicius does call for ingredients that are not presently easy to find in the United States:  myrtle berries, lovage seed, date syrup, fresh rue and pennyroyal.  If you’re an experienced cook, you can probably figure out appropriate substitutions, or else stick to the recipes that don’t use them.  Lovage seed and rue are the most problematic, as Grainger uses them in so many of the recipes.  I did buy some rue seeds to try growing the fresh herb myself, but in the meantime I’ve been substituting some bitter fresh green–I’ve tried dandelion, and might also try arugula or fenugreek leaves (all of which the Romans would have had).  I’ve tried substituting either celery seed or ajwain seed for lovage, with good results.  Or you could buy lovage seeds intended for planting in your garden.  Make sure they’re organic, not treated with any fungicide or other toxic chemical.  You’ll probably have to pick out the seeds from the bits of twig and leaf, since planting seeds aren’t sorted as carefully as eating seeds.  (This is one of Donald’s tasks when I cook ancient Roman food.)  Also, while I’m confident enough that they’re safe to eat that I’ve fed dishes containing them to friends, they’re probably not really approved for human consumption, so eat them at your own risk.  On that same note, there’s some toxicity associated with rue and pennyroyal, although my reading on the subject suggests that the fresh herb is probably safe to eat.  Just don’t go making yourself herbal teas with the stuff unless you really know what you’re doing, and stay away from the extracts.  (There have been some accidental poisoning deaths from pennyroyal extract in particular.)

When you’re trying to re-enact a historical practice, whether cooking, costuming, or jousting, you always have to make choices about how authentic you’re going to be.  I’ve done all my ancient Roman cooking on my gas stove in my modern American kitchen, but if I wanted to be truly authentic, I’d have to build a reproduction clay oven in my backyard, or at least cook over charcoal in my Weber grill.  Then there are the ingredients.  I can decide to use goats’ milk instead of cows’ milk, and avoid New World ingredients.  But vegetables have changed in 2000 years.  The ancient Romans didn’t have bright orange carrots.  Theirs were white or pale yellow, more like parsnips.  It’s unclear which of the Brassica oleracea they meant by cymae and coliculi–various members of the cabbage family, and we know they didn’t have Brussels sprouts yet, but were they headed cabbages, or something more like kale or collard greens, or even broccoli?  I won’t even get into the whole issue of how wheat has changed over the millennia.

However, if you want a cookbook that strikes a good balance between historical authenticity and ease of preparation, with recipes that taste good, I recommend Sally Grainger’s Cooking Apicius.

*This is not entirely true.  One of the recipes in Cooking Apicius calls for “lamb stock (cube or fresh)”.  I’m willing to forgive Grainger here because lamb stock is a little harder to find than chicken or beef (though I’m not sure I’ve ever seen lamb Oxo cubes here in the US; it would probably be easier for me to buy some bony lamb pieces and make my own stock).  Grant calls for a chicken stock cube in at least one recipe in his cookbook.  That’s simply unacceptable, unless you live in, say, post-war Britain in the 50s.

Posted in Ancient Rome, Cookbooks, Cooking, Food and drink, Reviews | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

What books cost

Last Wednesday, Donald and I went to hear my friend Max Gladstone read from his new book Three Parts Dead, at the Harvard Book Store.  I bought a copy of the book so Max could sign it (and so I could read it, obviously).  I purchased the hardcover from the Harvard Book Store even though I would have preferred to buy the Kindle e-book.  I have too many books, and I don’t have shelf space for all of them in my apartment.  However, I was there, and I figured that the Harvard Book Store would be more likely to give Max the opportunity to do readings upon the release of future novels if they sold a lot of copies.

I paid $24.99 plus 6.25% sales tax for the hardcover, for a total of $26.55.  Just out of curiosity, I checked the price on Amazon.  $11.99 for the Kindle.  $13.58 for the hardcover.  Even if I didn’t fall for Amazon’s “buy more stuff you don’t need to get free shipping” ploy, it would have been only another $3.99 for shipping, for a total of $17.57.

The Harvard Book Store has the following on the bottom of the register receipt I received:

How much money stays in your community when you spend $100?
At a locally owned business: $68
At a chain store: $43
At Amazon: $0

I do care about supporting local businesses (I buy most of my produce, at least late spring through fall, at a local farm.  I buy most of my meat from a Massachusetts farmer.).  I think independent bookstores are an asset to a community, in part because they can connect authors with readers, face-to-face, at events like Wednesday’s reading.  I have serious concerns about Amazon, from their blatant attempts to monopolize bookselling and publishing, to reports of unfair labor practices in their warehouses.  I don’t begrudge the Harvard Bookstore my $26.55.

But I question whether guilting people into buying things they didn’t want (hardcover vs. e-book), at a 50% premium, is, in the long term, a sustainable business model.

Posted in Bookstores, publishing | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Conditum paradoxum

As I’ve mentioned before on this blog, one of the things my husband Donald and I share is a fascination with the culture of ancient Rome.  Since I also love to cook, this leads inexorably to our attempts to recreate ancient Roman food and beverages.  I say “our” even though it’s usually me doing the cooking.  Donald is there for encouragement.  Such as, “We haven’t had any Roman food in a while.”  Or, “When are you going to cook some more Roman food?”  He does help with the dishes.

One ancient Roman recipe I’ve made twice now is conditum paradoxum, from Apicius, the most famous ancient Roman cookbook.  Depending on the translation, conditum paradoxum means “marvelous seasoned wine”, “novelty spiced wine”, or “spiced wine surprise”.

Unlike most recipes in Apicius, the instructions for conditum paradoxum include both procedure and exact proportions.  Donald has the original Latin on his blog.  Here’s a translation (Grocock, Christopher, and Sally Grainger. Apicius:  A Critical Edition with an Introduction and English Translation.  Blackawton:  Prospect Books, 2006.  Print.).  Except I left the ancient units untranslated instead of calling them pounds, ounces and pints, because they’re not exactly the same as the modern equivalents.

15 librae of honey by weight is put into a bronze pan containing 2 sextarii of wine so that the wine and the honey cook together.  Warm the pan on a gentle fire of dry wood and stir with a stick as it cooks.  If it begins to boil it is settled with a sprinkling of wine, besides which it will subside when it is removed from the fire.  When it has cooled down, it is heated again.  This will be done a second and a third time, and then at last it is removed from the hearth, and it is skimmed the day after.  Then you put in 4 unciae of ground pepper; 3 scruples of  mastic; one dragma each of folium and saffron; 5 roasted date stones and the dates themselves softened in wine of the same kind and quality, added in beforehand so that a smooth paste is produced.  When all these are ready you pour on 18 sextarii of smooth wine.  Charcoal is put in when it is finished (to avert the sour taste).

One thing that becomes quickly apparent if you look around for modern adaptations of this recipe is that no one these days likes  the Apicius proportions.  Everyone cuts way back on the honey.  However, although the original does call for about 11 pounds of honey in 11 liters of wine, the ancients didn’t drink their wine straight.  As far as we can tell, they cut it with at least 3 parts water to every 1 part wine.  Modern interpretations Donald and I have seen all try to produce a spiced wine that you could enjoy drinking unwatered, but that isn’t authentic, nor do I think it’s necessary.

I used the original proportions, scaling them down for 1.5 liters of wine (2 standard bottles).  That comes out to:

1.5 liters wine
15 grams ground pepper
682 grams honey
1 roasted date pit
1 pitted date soaked in a bit of the wine
0.63 grams folium
0.63 grams saffron (I used 0.5 g, since this is the smallest size available from Penzeys Spices down the street)
0.48 grams mastic (9-10 beads)

Scholars don’t know what was meant by folium, which means, simply, “leaf”.  Some think it’s bay leaf, which the Romans usually called folium lauri; others think it’s tejpat leaf, which the Romans usually called malabathrum.  I used tejpat, which I obtained from Kalustyan’s in Manhattan (they do mail order).  You could use bay leaf if you wanted.  Maybe the original recipe is vague because it didn’t matter which one you used.

We got gum mastic from Amazon.  It’s a hardened resin, and comes in a jar of small beads.

You’ll notice that the quantities of a lot of the spices are pretty small.  You’re probably going to need an electronic scale if you want to try this yourself.  Even then, unless you have access to an analytical balance (and if you have one of those at home, I don’t want to know why), your scale probably won’t measure small enough quantities with any degree of accuracy.  Mine doesn’t register weights smaller than a gram, so for the tejpat leaf and mastic, we would weigh out 4 or 10 times what we needed, then take a quarter or a tenth of that pile, judging by eyeing it.  Not very accurate, but I’m not sure it matters.  There’s a lot of pepper in there, and saffron is a very strong-tasting spice.  I’m not even 100% sure that I would be able to taste the difference if I left out the tejpat leaf and gum mastic.  So far, I haven’t tried that.

If you don’t have an electronic balance, you could try making the recipe in the original quantity.  A sextarius is 0.54 liters, and the original recipe calls for a total of 20 sextarii of wine, so if you’re good at math (or ancient Roman weights and measures), you can figure out how much of everything you’ll need.  That will make a lot of spiced wine, though.  You’ll need a big pot.

As for preparation, the original procedure is from a time of more primitive kitchens.  And of more primitive beekeeping.  The multiple cycles of heating and cooling the honey and wine, then skimming, are probably because ancient bulk honey (cheap enough to be used in 11 pound quantities) had a lot more gunk in it (wax, bits of dead bees, pollen).  These days, it’s difficult to find honey like that, and you have to pay extra for it, at Whole Foods or some similar store.  I didn’t bother with the skimming.  I heated the honey with 150 mL wine.  (Don’t get nervous about the metric units if you live in the United States, like I do.  Your measuring cups should have metric as well as Imperial units.  Unless you bought the really cheap ones.  If that sounds like you, go get some proper measuring cups before making this recipe.  Right now!)  Use medium low or low heat, and stir it a lot.  When you measure the honey and wine into the pot, you’ll think “This recipe will never work; it’s as thick as molasses!”  Don’t worry, the honey liquifies as you heat.

The first time I made this, I used Greek retsina for the wine.  Some people think that’s closer to the wine they would have had in the ancient world, since they often used pine resin to waterproof the clay amphorae in which they stored it.  The second time I made the recipe, I used a 1.5 liter bottle of inexpensive Italian pinot grigio.  I didn’t taste them side by side or anything, but I don’t remember one tasting different from the other.  Use something dry with a decent level of acidity, and don’t spend too much money on it, because you won’t be able to taste any subtlety in the wine anyway.

The recipe doesn’t say anything about how long the spices are supposed to sit in the wine and honey syrup before you add the rest of the wine.  It also doesn’t say whether you’re supposed to grind the mastic and date pit, or just toss them in.  Or how long to roast the date pit.  The first time, I roasted the date pit for about an hour at 350 F, then ground both it and the mastic (separately) in a coffee grinder before adding them to the pot.  The second time, I only roasted the pit for half an hour (which I think was still too long), and just crushed it in a mortar and pestle (the mortar and pestle is also good for smushing the soaked date).  I didn’t grind the mastic at all, the second time.  This is because mastic, a resin, is kind of sticky, and it was a pain to get it out of the coffee grinder into the pot, and then a double pain to clean the coffee grinder.  After adding the spices, I kept the pot on the lowest heat for about half an hour, stirring every now and then.  It shouldn’t boil, so if your stove doesn’t have a really low heat setting, you might have to switch it between on and off.  You could also just let it steep for an hour or so, like tea.

The second time, when I added the whole mastic beads to the pot instead of grinding them, I was sort of hoping they would melt or dissolve into the mix.  They did soften, but they never entirely went away, and the mixture was starting to boil, so I gave up.  I learned afterwards that mastic doesn’t dissolve in water and is only slightly soluble in alcohol.  Apparently, it can take days to dissolve it in pure alcohol at room temperature.  Also, according to one of the customer reviews on Amazon, I was supposed to rinse the beads off before using them, because they’re covered with a very fine sand.  Hmm.  Next time, I guess.

Once you’ve decided the honey wine syrup has melded with the spices long enough, add the rest of the wine.  Then strain out the spices.  I didn’t bother with the charcoal.  Partly because the recipe is unclear about how the charcoal is used, and partly because I wasn’t confident that the hardwood charcoal I buy for the grill should be added to food.  However, I’ve used charcoal in the chemistry lab to decolor and clarify solutions, so I suspect that the proper procedure for this is to add a spoonful or two of ground charcoal, bring to a simmer, then strain.  If you do want to try this, you will need to strain it through a coffee filter.  Otherwise you won’t have clarified the wine at all, you’ll just have added unsightly black dust to the bottom.  Cheesecloth isn’t fine enough.

Since I didn’t use charcoal, I didn’t even both straining through cheesecloth, I just used a fine mesh strainer.  It doesn’t get rid of all the spice sludge, but I was lazy, and decided that the spice sludge added character.  It it at least removes all the large chunks.

Now you have conditum paradoxum.  It should taste mostly of honey and saffron, with a bit of a peppery bite.  Like I said earlier, you won’t want to drink this straight.  It’s way too sweet and syrupy.  3 parts water to 1 part spiced wine works pretty well.  Or, if you want to throw away all the historical authenticity for which you’ve labored so hard, use sparkling water or club soda as the mixer.

Even diluted, it still tastes mostly of honey and saffron, and pepper.  The wine gives it a necessary dose of acidity, though, balancing the sweetness.

It actually made me think of a wine cooler, especially the sparkling variation.  Very sweet, flavored, not too alcoholic.  One of the most fascinating things about trying to reproduce ancient food–or cooking food from contemporary cultures around the world, for that matter–is noticing unexpected similarities between the foreign and the familiar.

If you’re interested in either ancient Rome or food history, check out my earlier post on cooking ancient Roman food.  And stay tuned for future posts, where (assuming I get around to writing them) you can read all about The Search for Ancient Spices No One Uses Anymore, Sometimes Because They’re Poisonous, and How Ancient Roman Food is Like Thai Cooking.

Posted in Ancient Rome, Cooking, Food and drink | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Imaginarium 2012, again

Okay, it seems to be available from all the American online booksellers now (links are here).  Enjoy!

Posted in My published fiction, Short fiction, writing | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Imaginarium 2012 now available – in Canada

My story “The Kiss of the Blood-Red Pomegranate” is now out in Imaginarium 2012, an annual reprint anthology from ChiZine Publications and Tightrope Books featuring the previous year’s best Canadian speculative fiction (i.e., science fiction, fantasy, horror, magic realism, and whatever else the editors decide fits).  The story came out last year in Aoife’s Kiss, a small print magazine, so it’s exciting for me that my story was chosen to appear in Imaginarium, and perhaps reach a wider audience.

Imaginarium is already available in Canada, either directly from the publisher, or from Amazon.ca or Chapters/Indigo, and you can get it in either trade paperback or e-book (all the major formats).  I don’t know if it’s also available in brick-and-mortar bookstores.  (You know, the old-fashioned kind, that you have to walk into.)

The publisher does make more money if you buy it from them instead of a third party, and that means they can then put more money back into the business, publishing more books and paying more authors.  But of course, they (and I!) would be delighted if you choose to buy a copy, no matter where you buy it.  There are 37 stories and poems, most of them by Canadian authors far more famous than I.

If you live in the United States, you can get it now from any of the aforementioned e-book retailers (or direct from ChiZine), but the trade paperback won’t be available from Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble, or other online bookstores until at least the end of August (although you can pre-order).  I’ll post here again once it is available.  You could still order it from the publisher, but the shipping is another 165% on top of the cost of the book.  (Please blame Canada Post for the outrageous price, not the publisher.)

If you don’t live in either Canada or the United States … well, I hope you like e-books!  Although it’s interesting how our expectations have changed.  20 years ago, if a book I wanted came out from a small publisher in another country (especially if that country was not the United States), I would have taken for granted that it would be difficult and possibly expensive to obtain.  Nowadays, I feel kind of miffed if I can’t get cheap 7-day shipping.  But you may be a better person than I am.  (I’m pretty sure ChiZine will ship the book to you anywhere in the world with a functional postal service, but they will have to charge you whatever it costs them.)

ChiZine Publications does appear at various science fiction conventions throughout Canada and around the world, often with a table of books for sale, if you’re a convention-goer you might also be able to purchase the book there.  (They’ll be at Worldcon in Chicago, and World Fantasy in Toronto, among others.)

Posted in books, My published fiction | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Historical authenticity, historical verisimilitude, and how political correctness leads to bad Christian fiction

3 months ago, Daniel Abraham wrote an article on historical authenticity in fantasy.  A week later, Black Gate blogger Theo posted a critique of that article (and a follow-up post 2 weeks after that, to clear up some of the misconceptions created by his initial post).

Now I’m finally getting around to saying something about it.  I will clearly never be one of the top bloggers, since by the time I’m ready to weigh in on the latest controversy, everyone’s forgotten about it and moved on to something new.

As I understood it, the gist of Abraham’s article is that when people criticize particular fantasy novels (usually ones “set in an imaginary medieval Europe”) for being sexist and/or racist, responding with “but the Middle Ages really were sexist and racist” constitutes an inadequate argument.  None of these fantasy novels, Abraham argues, present a historically authentic picture of  medieval Europe, so to say that they have to embody historically authentic medieval social mores is ridiculous.  He doesn’t say that they shouldn’t (although a few of the approving comments following his article seem to).  In fact, he explicitly states that, “There are legitimate reasons for racism, sexism, and sexual violence to be part of a fantasy project”.  Just don’t go saying that the simple fact of a story being set in a pre-Industrial society justifies their presence.

Theo’s initial response to the article seems to be directed at the comment thread, not against anything Abraham actually wrote.  “We need less authenticity in fantasy?” he asks.  It’s also unclear that he gave Abraham’s article a close reading rather than just skimming for things he disagreed with.  “Abraham’s second point [that many classic fantasy novels would not be improved by more historical authenticity] can’t be addressed unless he provides us with some examples,” he says.  Fortunately, Daniel Abraham makes an appearance in the comments thread following Theo’s post, helpfully reminding Theo of the examples he does, in fact, provide.

Theo’s follow-up post was better, and I agreed with much of it.  He agrees with Abraham that not all fantasy needs to be historically authentic, but expresses some concern over the idea that historical authenticity doesn’t matter for novels that are attempting to present some fantasy version of Europe’s medieval period more realistically (George R. R. Martin’s series A Song of Ice and Fire, for instance).  But he suggests that perhaps verisimilitude is a better word than authenticity:  that an author should “make a reasonable attempt to either a) get things reasonably correct, or b) provide the reader with some modicum of a rationale for departing from the realm of historical fact and plausibility.”  Just because it’s fantasy, in other words, doesn’t mean you can (or should) make up whatever you like.

Although I tend to agree, I still think Theo is talking past Abraham here.  Abraham is saying (my paraphrase), “Don’t defend offensive content in a work of fiction by saying that the author is just being historically authentic.  If you think it’s defensible, defend it some other way.”  Whereas Theo is making a case for why fantasy fiction about imaginary pre-Industrial societies should be plausible based on what we know of how similar societies actually worked (even if that makes stories set in those imaginary societies offensive to some modern readers).

Theo also laments the tendency to judge books on the basis of the political views that they appear to express:

As it is created by intrinsically political creatures, all art may contain various political biases and perspectives, but that does not make politics an appropriate lens through which its artistic value is discerned.  If that is the route the genre is going to go, Tor may as well simply place donkey or elephant stickers* on its books and thus ensure that no one will accidentally read anything that offends their delicate political sensibilities.

Hear, hear!  (Although the sentiment does seem a bit ironic, in light of the irrelevant attacks on Keynesian economic theory with which Theo introduces his original response to Abraham.)

The comment threads following both Abraham’s article and Theo’s original response are worth reading, though there’s more of an actual back-and-forth dialogue following Theo’s post.  Most of the people commenting on Abraham’s article did so to vociferously agree with him and other commenters, and take his argument further than he did.  I found many of these comments insightful, but some of them bothered me.

Here’s a sample:  “Strong female role models are important.”  “We like [generic Western fantasy], more than we should.”  “Generic epic fantasy wasn’t forced on us, we chose it as a model … It is not bad manners to question those authors who haven’t found reason to cut away its rotten pieces, [which] we’d all be better off without.”  “When you pick a few elements from the ‘default’ setting because they are right there … without examining what these elements stand for, you end up perpetuating the same old cultural hegemony, rather than making any kind of progressive statement.”

This all starts to remind me of something.  The distrust of any fiction that appears to promote values that you disagree with, the skepticism about the value of any work that doesn’t explicitly advance awareness and acceptance of The Only Correct Way to Believe.  As a lifelong evangelical Christian, I can’t even count the number of times I’ve been told that, as Christians, we should only support the work of writers, musicians, and film makers whose work promotes Christian values.  Or heard Christian friends condemn particular books or films as morally bad.  I decided a long time ago that I was going to miss out on a great deal of interesting and powerful fiction if I was unable to appreciate books that I disagreed with (going back to Theo’s comment about donkey and elephant stickers).  And I don’t see why I should change, just because a different set of values is being held up by a different group as The One True Path.

Also, anyone who thinks that encouraging and promoting fiction with “the right message” will lead to original and creative work should get themself to the nearest Christian bookstore, pronto, and take a look around.  It doesn’t matter what the message is:  if you convince authors that they need to make the correct political or moral statements in their work in order to be read and appreciated, every book starts to sound the same.

As far as Daniel Abraham’s actual argument goes, I sort of agree and sort of disagree.  I sort of disagree because I think that most people arguing for historical authenticity actually mean historical verisimilitude.  They don’t really believe that “fantasy medieval Europe” is historically accurate, and they realize that the Middle Ages were more varied and complex in culture and social mores than our consensus picture of them would suggest.  So Abraham is making a bit of a straw man argument here.

Also, although Abraham gives excellent examples of fantasy novels that don’t have much historical authenticity–or, arguably, verisimilitude–and don’t need it (The Chronicles of Narnia, The Last Unicorn, etc.), he ignores historical and pseudo-historical fantasy, of which Guy Gavriel Kay’s secondary world novels from The Lions of Al-Rassan onward are perhaps the most pertinent example.  And an example for which it’s far more difficult to make a convincing case that historical authenticity is beside the point.

I do agree with Abraham that even fantasy purporting to show the Middle Ages like they really were tends to ignore fundamental aspects of actual history (the importance of religion, the fact that not so many people lived in cities, the absence of dragons) whenever it’s plot convenient.  So why is that okay, but they somehow can’t invent a society in which women and men are equal?

Though I have to say, I’m only in partial agreement here.  I agree that works like A Song of Ice and Fire aren’t as historically authentic as many people say they are, which makes it questionable to use historical authenticity to justify the elements that some find problematic.  But I also find it irritating when too many characters in pre-Industrial secondary world fantasy think and act like agnostic, politically liberal 21st century Canadians, Americans, or western Europeans (or, even more irritating, when only the good guys do).  There is, in fact, a large percentage of the world’s population, historically and to this day, that does not share these values.  Isn’t it a kind of cultural imperialism to create imagined worlds where all the sympathetic characters agree with us on all the important issues?

However, an argument is a bad argument if it doesn’t convince anyone, or even encourage them to look at the issue from a different angle, and it should be clear to those of us (including me) who have used the historical authenticity argument in the past that it isn’t convincing anyone who doesn’t already agree.  Abraham should be commended for bringing this to our attention, and for encouraging a deeper and more sophisticated analysis of fantasy.

* For those of you who might be less familiar with U.S. politics, the donkey is a symbol of the Democratic Party, the elephant of the Republican.  Tor is one of the biggest publishers of fantasy and science fiction novels.

Posted in Fantasy, Politics, writing | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Story to appear in Canadian Best of the Year anthology

The table of contents is up, so it’s official:  my story “The Kiss of the Blood-Red Pomegranate”, published last year in Aoife’s Kiss, is slated to appear in Imaginarium 2012:  The Best Canadian Speculative Writing.  Of course, I feel incredibly honored to have a story chosen for this, along with writers like Cory Doctorow, Geoff Ryman, and Peter Watts.

Imaginarium is a yearly anthology co-published by ChiZine Publications and Tightrope Books.  It’s coming out in July, but you can already pre-order either the trade paperback or the e-book (Kindle, iBook, or Nook).

I’ll post another update once the book has been officially released, and probably another once I’ve had a chance to read all the other stories.  This will be my first appearance in any Best of the Year anthology, so I’m pretty excited!

Posted in My published fiction, Short fiction, writing | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Nine

It’s been over a month since my story “Clear Skies in Pixieland” came out in new e-journal Nine, and I’ve finally (a) finished reading the entire issue, and (b) found time to blog about it.  One of these days, maybe I’ll be more timely with these blog posts.  But there’s been more travelling and less time for writing than usual in my life this past month, and I try not to spend time on blog posts unless I’m also spending a reasonable amount of time writing fiction, so….

The nine stories in Issue 1 are a nicely diverse set:  contemporary fantasy (my story), science fiction, horror, magic realism, and historical fantasy all appear, ranging in length from flash fiction to novelette.  While I found every story interesting and compelling in some way (which is not the case with every magazine I read), my favorite was Garrett Ashley’s “The Last Letter, I’m Sorry You’ll Live Forever”, a science fictional take on the story of a son whose mother is immortal.

The lineup for Issue 2 of Nine was just announced, though no official word yet on when they’ll be publishing it.

Posted in My published fiction, Reviews, Short fiction | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

New story out in Nine

My story “Clear Skies in Pixieland” just came out in the first issue of Nine, a brand-new e-zine.  If you’re interested, you can buy a copy of the magazine (or even a 3-month subscription) here.  The authors will receive royalties if the magazine sells enough copies, so if you buy one, you’re helping out the authors as well as the publishers!

“Clear Skies in Pixieland” is a contemporary fantasy loosely connected to “The Kiss of the Blood-Red Pomegranate”, which appeared in the December issue of Aoife’s Kiss.  The shadowy villain mentioned in TKotBP actually shows up in this one.

This is an important story for me, because it’s the first one I finished after deciding that I wanted to make a serious attempt at writing and publishing short fiction.  Before that, I’d mostly worked on novels.  I’d written a handful of short stories, even submitted a couple to magazines, but I’d give up after they were rejected two or three times (with those earlier stories, giving up was probably a good idea).  This was the first story I wrote after deciding that I was going to write short stories, and I was going to keep submitting them until they were accepted.  Perhaps unsurprisingly, the version that you can read now in Nine doesn’t bear much resemblance to that first version that I started sending around.  The basic premise is the same, but it’s been almost completely rewritten.  Twice.  As I learned more about writing, I would take another look at that old story, and realize that I could probably do better.  So I did.

There are eight other stories in this issue of Nine (hence the name), one by Hugo- and Nebula-nominated author Ken Liu, who is also, coincidentally, one of my husband’s coworkers.  I haven’t read his story in Nine yet, but I really liked the story he had in last October’s Clarkesworld, “Staying Behind”.

So, check out Nine!  Tell your friends.

Posted in My published fiction, Short fiction, writing | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Many worlds doesn’t mean what you think it does

Unless you’re a quantum physicist, that is.  After years of listening to fantasy writers who haven’t studied any quantum mechanics using it to justify everything from magic to visitable alternate universes, my husband Donald (who did his PhD in quantum computation) finally wrote a blog post explaining how it doesn’t really work that way.

Posted in Science, writing | Tagged , , | Leave a comment