Cross posted from A Wicked Convergence of Circumstances
I have been in numerous ridiculous arguments about ridiculous things. Occasionally it happens that I am right and someone else is wrong. I am not very good at arguing , and I tend to lose most debates because I tend not to be very well spoken, and I am generally not considered a font of wisdom or even common sense by the folks I have argued with in the past. These are a few examples of arguments I have been in, where I have been right, and the other person persisted in being wrong (and not even wrong on the Internet, but in meatspace).
1. Only female writers wrote stories for Marion Zimmer Bradley’s Sword and Sorceress: I was told this by a male acquaintance several times. I corrected him every time and listed the male authors, yet he persisted in stating Sword and Sorceress only permitted female writers. NO. The thing with S&S was that the main character 1. Had to be female. 2. Was not out to “prove” anything about her gender being capable of doing (fill in the blank). She is naturally occurring in the environment as (fill in the blank). She might face difficulties for being (fill in the blank) but the difficulties were not to be the point of the story. There were other rules too, and while it’s true there were many female writers for these anthologies, there WERE ALSO MANY MALE WRITERS.
2. There is a fourth book in C.S. Lewis Space Trilogy: a female friend of mine told this to me. SHE IS WRONG. I have honestly looked for this book, and even tried to see if Lewis ever did any novella length stories with this series. Zip. Zilch. Nada. It is a book that does not exist. (But on the off chance that I’m wrong, if there is such a book or story, could someone please tell me?)
3. Nine Princes in Amber is the second book of the first Amber series: Told to me by a male acquaintance. HE IS WRONG. It really is the first book. Zelazny just liked starting novels smack in the middle of a character’s history sometimes. (Seriously, Nine Princes opens like it’s the middle of a longer work.) We had some very hairy arguments about this. The other ones mostly involved certain of Heinlein’s works that I wasn’t very impressed with.
5. Number five is not an argument. I just want someone in particular to know that yes, I am in fact aware that Metropolis (The 1927 silent movie) is set in the future. And that the futuristic elements naturally don’t always look very futuristic due to the fact it was MADE IN 1927! It is unnecessary for you to keep repeating it WHEN I’M WATCHING THE MOVIE. Believe it or not, I’ve all ready encountered the situation, since I grew up reading really old sf stories that had computers the size of a ROOM, that didn’t do half the things that computer do NOW.There are of course others, but these are the ones that come to mind. More later.