Skip to main content

We are a Muse (d)

I've been members of several forums for writers and would-be writers. Some provide superb opportunities to discuss the trials and tribulations of the writing life with fellow authors. Others are more like an X-Factor holding pen of hopefuls. But something they've all had in common is not really producing anything of value for the outside world... until now.

The Litopia forum has produced an ezine by the name of Muse.

When this was first proposed, to be honest, I envisaged one of those rather tatty self-produced 'magazines' that clubs knock out. A bit like the Bulletin of the British Conker Enthusiasts (apologies if BBCE exists - I was making it up). The sort of thing that tends to appear as a 'guest publication' at the end of Have I Got News For You, so everyone can sneer at it. How wrong could I be.

In practice, Muse has superb production values - much better than some professional ezines I've seen - and lots of great content from author interviews to articles, fiction and reviews. And, yes, there's an interview with me - but this hasn't biassed me in any way. Really.

So run, don't walk, over to Litopia and take a look. Or just download your copy by right clicking here and selecting 'Save link as...' or 'Save file as...' I recommend downloading rather than reading in your viewer as some viewers (certainly the Firefox PDF plugin) slightly mangle it.

Comments

  1. To be honest, I had the same initial reaction as you to the news that there was yet another new magazine to download. But I trust your judgment (and would love to read your interview), so I'm off to download now.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brian

    Thank you for pointing out this e-mag which, like you, I think is well designed, with a but....

    ..which is that (call me old fashioned) I don't like white type on a black background because although it looks good is hard for me to read for any length of time. I prefer black on white with a plain font.

    Then I'll read all day.

    Probably a red rag to a designer but I'm only a customer/consumer/purchaser

    PS Liked your piece even though I found it hard to read

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hope it wasn't a disappointment, Sue.

    Fair point L'sdad - it looks gorgeous that way, but it isn't optimal for readability. I guess the best thing would be to do title pages like that, but have most of the 'reading' pages on a white or off-white background.

    Takes me back to doing software usability reviewing in my BA days...

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope