Oh, I totally agree with you on the general principle; I just couldn't resist the counterexample given the specific example you quoted.

Peter Watts is something very special; if you've not read it, I strongly recommend his novel "Blindsight", which is legitmately available from his website here: http://www.rifters.com/real/Blindsight.htm

It's one of the most intelligent books I have ever read, and also one of the most downbeat.

It's actually a good reminder that the "main character" isn't necessarily the protagonist as far as the audience is concerned.  I'll have to take a look at some of his other work... although I get enough downbeat from the news these days.

2.8K tonight.  First draft of Breath of Scheherazade is now done, weighing in at 25.5K. 

Now for a brandy.  I've earned the sumbitch.

Hope you feel better soon.  Hunkering down and trying to avoid the stomach bug rampaging thorugh my area atm.

Got about 7K done this week

mmmmmm..... pandas.....

If you've got a regular Facebook presence, I'd suggest keeping it segregated and firewalled from your Author site, so some thing an acquantence posts regarding some issue you don't care to address as an author does not become associated with your work.  (I've got a friend who likes to post the most apalling things when he has access to my keyboard, then his wife likes the hell out of them.  Not stuff I'd want associated with my professional work.)

And the other reason is that I don't care to politicize my work.

I'm following Jim's lead:  I'm writing for people who find my characters engaging and who enjoy my worldbuidling & storytelling.  I've no intention of addressing the typical socio-political issues or current events for a couple of reasons. 

The first is pure pragmatism.  As Jim says, when you take a political stand, you're going to alienate half your potential audience. 

The second is artistic and ego related.  I want my work to stand on it's own feet as pure storytelling.  Is someone takes something positive from it, the I'd be thrilled, but I'm not interested in trying to peddle spiritual enlearnment, social awarenessissity, or Worldview Validation even if those might win me some sales or friendly reviews from people who feel I'm supporting their Cause or bashing the other bloke's.

And finally, my politics are across the board.  In terms of categories, I'm neither fish nor fowl nor good red meat.  I pick my positions and ideas based on the issue at hand and how it weighs against my values and viewpoints.  Which means I've got quotes supporting as well as bashing various things on the Left, Right, Center, Tranverse Axial Counter Alignmentary Stuff.  When I do share an stance with a political faction on an issue, it's likety-not for the same reasons they do, and I'll probably have a solution which they'd find perfectly apalling.

I offend all factions with joy and enthusiasm, particularly when their being self-righteous hypocrits.

That, and I just really have trouble passing up a straight line.

So basically, in terms of social and political factions and values, I'm regurlarly pissing on everyone's shoes.  And when I spot a faction slathering on the old double standards, adopting the same intellectual methodology that makes them howl "SCANDALAMITY!" when the other side does it... I don't just piss on their shoes, I give them the shake too, take a picture of them standing in pee-shoes, then share it so. 

Needless t say, my facebook page is all over the map.  Based on my likes, shares, and satirical comments, a causual user would define me as a gay straight heteronormative christian fascist atheistic devil worshipping liberal mysoginistic democratic feminist tea party socialist lap dog of imperialism who peels baby pandas for big oil while Occupying some shit for Anonymous pot farmers. 

So I compartmentalize my writing.  Anyone who reads a social issue into it will do so only because their own baggage led them to it.

(Neuro, I'm talking more the common-usage, Left Vs Right, current events social issues, as opposed to the more finely scaled ones such as free-will, individuality, etc   )

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/02/06/space-marines-and-the-battle-of-tradem-ark/

Games Workshop recently got a self-published E-book, titled "Spots The Space Marine" pulled from Amazon by threatening to sue on the ground that they own the trademark to the term "Space Marine." 

A brief history of Space Marines before Games Workshop invented them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_marine

And already, the humor begins...



Anyway, I'm posting this because we've a goodly number of folks who have or are planning on e-publishing and self-publishing, and this could be an issue if Amazon were to start pulling anything with "space marines."  Granted, anything that doesn't use it in the title would probably stay off the radar, but if somebody were to hit it big with a self-published kindle book, GW might serve up one of these notices and get your work pulled. 

John Scalzi has commented that as president of SFWA, this issue "is on his radar," but hasn't gone into any further detail. 

Something to consider--your piece might've simply been too long for the space they had available.  I've seen the suggestion that to get published in a magazine--write shorter.  Because if they have only so much space, and the editor has to choose between a longer piece by a well-known author or by an unknown, they're going to go for the well-known author.

Oh, I'm a fiend with word counts.   Many will auto-reject after just glancing at the word count, after all.

The first one had a 3.5K limit, and I was meticulous in staying under.  After I got it back (with a very encouraging, personal rejection) I put another five or six hundred words that it really needed and sent it to Clarkesworld, where it fell into the "preferred" zone.  (I've got heaps of 10K that I'm saving for e-zines specifically looking for novella length stuff.)  So in this case, I'm pretty sure it wasn't word count.  Either a small poisong pill, like a clunkety spot that soured an otherwise printable story, or it simply didn't quite intersect with what they were looking for.