It’s so easy to feel overwhelmed by”¦ everything right now.
Climate change, the rise of authoritarianism, the economy, systemic racism, a global pandemic. Social media (which arguably has never been a showcase for the best humanity has on offer) has become a doom scroll. The news headlines aren’t comforting either, obviously, as that’s not their job, but feel even less so this year.
Meanwhile, Life with a capital L keeps happening. We all still have to keep a roof over our heads, some of us have kids to feed and prepare for whatever the hell it is that lies ahead, or parents to support in their old age, or maybe even both. An appalling number of us have to fight daily just for the right to exist.
And worst of all, I think, is that it is the year 2020. There’s something extra galling about the fact that we’re nearly a quarter way through the 21st century and we literally have access to the sum total of the world’s knowledge in our pockets”¦ and yet we seem to be inundated with both egregious ignorance and aggressive gullibility. Never mind a jet pack, I’d be happy just to get everyone on the same damn page: Clean air good, pollution bad.
On my darker days, I tend to turn to accounts from other people who lived through uncertain or frightening times. Victor Frankl’s Man’s Search for Meaning comes to mind, or going further back, something like Pandaemonium by Humphrey Jennings. An obvious place to look for historical parallels right now is back to our most famous pandemic, even if our perception of those times isn’t entirely accurate. These books and essays don’t offer answers, per se, but they do provide that all important connection: other people have been in a crucible and survived, and maybe you can too.
But what can you do beyond just get by? These problems we’re facing seem so big and intractable. You’re just one person, right?
Listen: One person can make a difference.
Here’s how I know. On May 16th, 2020, more than 5000 volunteers in my community, following physical distancing protocols and wearing masks, collected at least 678,200 pounds””yes pounds, and no that amount is not a typo””of food, donated by residents who had been asked to leave a non-perishable item on their porch or front step for collection.
The goal was to restock local food banks, because donations had tailed off due to the pandemic lockdown. Organizers called it the May 16th Miracle, and the whole effort was put together in less than three weeks via social media and the now ubiquitous Zoom.
The Miracle”¦ was just one person’s idea.
It was not a government initiative, it wasn’t put together by a big non-profit organization, and it had no budget for publicity. One person saw that others were hurting, reached out to a few other people who would be able to recognize the same need, and this small group of people then put out the call to the community at large. And wow, did the community respond.
Even better, a neighbouring community was so inspired by the effort that they organized their own miracle and brought in even more donations for their food banks.
I took part in the May 16th Miracle as an area “˜captain,’ and the experience of collecting bag after bag of goods from my neighbours, and then joining the huge convoy en route to a makeshift warehouse has sustained me ever since. I’ve started noticing quiet success stories all over the place: the Facebook gardening group members giddily sharing pictures of the monarch caterpillars they’re now seeing in the gardens they’ve overhauled to include native species; the grassroots pressure that forced universities and other institutions to divest from oil and gas holdings; the proliferation of Pride rainbow crosswalks in even those most conservative of towns; colonial-era statues finally, finally coming down.
Yes, it’s 2020. No, we shouldn’t have to still be fighting these fights. But what you’re doing, however big or small your contribution, is working. Indeed, there wouldn’t be so much pushback if it weren’t.
Keep going. Double down if you can. It matters.
You matter.
BIO: Chandra Clarke (she/her) is the author of the Pundragon (available August 10), a cli-fi book disguised as a humorous fantasy. You can find her blog at www.chandrakclarke.com or say hi on Twitter at @chandraclarke.
This was a guest blog post. Interested in blogging here?
Assembling an itinerary for a blog tour? Promoting a book, game, or other creative effort that’s related to fantasy, horror, or science fiction and want to write a guest post for me?
Alas, I cannot pay, but if that does not dissuade you, here’s the guidelines.
Guest posts are publicized on Twitter, several Facebook pages and groups, my newsletter, and in my weekly link round-ups; you are welcome to link to your site, social media, and other related material.
Send a 2-3 sentence description of the proposed piece along with relevant dates (if, for example, you want to time things with a book release) to cat AT kittywumpus.net. If it sounds good, I’ll let you know.
I prefer essays fall into one of the following areas but I’m open to interesting pitches:
Interesting and not much explored areas of writing
Writers or other individuals you have been inspired by
Your favorite kitchen and a recipe to cook in it
A recipe or description of a meal from your upcoming book
Women, PoC, LGBT, or otherwise disadvantaged creators in the history of speculative fiction, ranging from very early figures such as Margaret Cavendish and Mary Wollstonecraft up to the present day.
Women, PoC, LGBT, or other wise disadvantaged creators in the history of gaming, ranging from very early times up to the present day.
F&SF volunteer efforts you work with
Length is 500 words on up, but if you’ve got something stretching beyond 1500 words, you might consider splitting it up into a series.
When submitting the approved piece, please paste the text of the piece into the email. Please include 1-3 images, including a headshot or other representation of you, that can be used with the piece and a 100-150 word bio that includes a pointer to your website and social media presences. (You’re welcome to include other related links.)
Or, if video is more your thing, let me know if you’d like to do a 10-15 minute videochat for my YouTube channel. I’m happy to handle filming and adding subtitles, so if you want a video without that hassle, this is a reasonable way to get one created. ???? Send 2-3 possible topics along with information about what you’re promoting and its timeline.
Want access to a lively community of writers and readers, free writing classes, co-working sessions, special speakers, weekly writing games, random pictures and MORE for as little as $2? Check out Cat’s Patreon campaign.
Want to get some new fiction? Support my Patreon campaign.
"(On the writing F&SF workshop) Wanted to crow and say thanks: the first story I wrote after taking your class was my very first sale. Coincidence? nah….thanks so much."
~K. Richardson
You may also like...
Guest Post: Historical Fiction Requires Research: Including Pop Culture! by Elizabeth Guizzetti
Thank you for having me today!
I love writing about vampires because of the historical research. One question I always ask when doing this research is: what would someone of that era know?
My latest novel, Accident Among Vampires (Or What Would Dracula Do?) is set in 1951-52. The protagonist is Norma Mae Rollins, a 14-year-old girl who is learning to survive as a vampire. Before she was transformed, she spent many Saturday afternoons and evenings in her small hometown theater.
Going to the movies was a different experience than it is today. The movie started with not just trailers, but also newsreels, cartoons.
The movie palaces of this era often showed first run movies, but small theaters often showed older movies. Some B films were made to be the less publicized of a double feature, but before television, cable, and streaming services, movie studios sold second run movies to drive-ins and smaller theaters in bundles who played them as double features or as the B showing with a newer film. This is why Norma would have likely seen movies such as Dracula, 1931 though she wasn’t born until 1938.
I also used these films to ensure my speech patterns felt correct as I used a few archaic words in dialogue: may’ve, shall, and shan’t. Norma doesn’t call adults by their given names without permission. Other than close relations, Norma calls adults: ma’am, Madame/Lady, sir, Sir, or honored ancients/one. She calls her creator Mr. Caruso, until he said “Call me Bill or even Dad”¦”
I will offer a warning: modern audiences delving into classic American theater will find plenty of cringe-worthy moments. For most of these films, the Hayes Code was in effect. A woman’s innocence was generally their ticket to life; conniving women were killed. In Dracula’s Daughter, the love interest (human) talks about shooting women as a joke. Son of Dracula has racist depictions of minorities: Black and Roma characters. You will, and should be, offended by certain spoken lines or things you see in these old movies.
This list is not by any means extensive, I watched close to a hundred movies for this book alone, but this list is the vampire-specific films I watched to prepare me to know what Norma knows about vampires in 1951. She thinks about what hurt (and didn’t) the vampires from films and books constantly. She asks adult vampires about scenes in many of these films. And she pretends to be Bill’s “sweet” daughter because as I said, sweet innocent women survive.
This list is in order of release. There are actors you will see again and again: Bela Lugosi, Lionel Atwell, Lon Chaney, as many of them were typecast into these roles.
This is the one with Bela Lugosi in the title role that everyone knows, loves, parodies, and quotes.
My Thoughts:
The first act follows the book, then it tells its own story with many of the book’s characters. If you haven’t seen it, it is a classic piece of cinema.
Helen Chandler plays lovely and sweet Mina but her near transformation scene when she wants take a bite out of Jonathan make the movie worth watching.
Dwight Frye as Renfield is the closest to the book character: always escaping his cell and very strong.
Villagers start dying of blood loss and town leaders suspect a resurgence of vampirism.
Dr. von Niemann (Lionel Atwell) cares for the victims. He learns a patient, a kindhearted woman, Martha, was attacked by a bat. Another villager, Herman Glieb, claims he likes bats. Soon the village thinks Herman is a vampire.
My Thoughts:
This movie felt original and fun. It is definitely worth watching. It is a mystery and a horror film. Plus there is a scientist.
The portrayal of women is straight out of Gothic Tropes 101. Fay Wray plays the good and clever ingenue, but there is also the foolish middle-aged hypochondriac, the kind-hearted villager, etc.
Finally, the expressions, general strait-laced manner, and mustache of the police inspector directly inspired the vampire Derrik Miller in my novel.
A reluctant vampire, Countess Countess Marya Zaleska, believes that by destroying Dracula’s body, after his death, she will be freed of her vampirism. This fails, she turns to a psychiatrist and becomes obsessed with him.
My Thoughts:
If you watch any film on this list, please watch this one! This beautifully shot film plays with lights and shadows as if it were a film noir. The characters all feel important, nothing in the sets or onscreen feels wasted.
Gloria Holden plays the Countess Marya Zaleska in a soft but deadly way. A direct sequel to Dracula, 1931, it said to be loosely based off Dracula’s Guest or the title character of Carmilla, but the plot has nothing to do with either story. The Countess’ preferred victims are women (she kills men too), and she is thought to be coded bisexual or lesbian which is the only tie it has to Carmilla.
Lon Chaney plays Count Alucard/Dracula who marries an American woman named Kay who loves all things morbid. She wants to gain eternal life. She is turned into a vampire when her ex-lover shoots her accidentally, he was aiming for Dracula.  Kay changes in unexpected ways.
My Thoughts:
This is a very good film and well-worth watching, but there are several racist depictions of minorities. One of the best parts about the film is everyone is acting pretty smart. Also it has the first on-camera transformation of a bat to vampire. (Earlier films were done with cutting, this is done with animation.)
In regards to my novel, this is the film which gives Norma daymares after she is transformed as a vampire for two reasons: Kay is the smartest one in the room and will do anything to get what she wants. Sometimes, Norma fears being a “bright girl” for this reason. Though her death is offscreen, well the idea of it gives Norma daymares.
A kindly small-town doctor Lloyd Clayton murdered his evil twin brother, because Elwyn practices the occult. However, Elwyn returns as a vampire and murders the villagers by draining them of their blood and leaves evidence The doctor, his niece, and her fiancé discover that Elwyn still lives.
My Thoughts: PRC is known for low budget B films. While this is an original story, it hits many of the same beats as Dracula especially in regards to the ingenue (Mary Carlisle) and her love interest. The lead dual role played by George Zucco is very campy (especially when he plays Elwyn) so if you enjoy that, you’ll enjoy this one.
Dr. Gustav Niemann played by Boris Karloff escapes from prison along with his hunchback assistant, Daniel. To exact revenge on the man who had put him in prison, Niemann revives Dracula. Dracula, played by John Caradine, seduces Hussmann’s granddaughter-in-law and kills Hussmann.
Niemann causes the poor vampire to perish in the sunlight. Niemann and Daniel move on to the flooded ruins of Castle Frankenstein, where they find the preserved bodies of Frankenstein’s monster (Glenn Strange) and Wolfman/Larry Talbot (Lon Chaney).
My Thoughts:
I enjoyed all the monster mash-type films as did Norma. They are her favorites on this list.
This is the sequel to House of Frankenstein Dr. Franz Edelmann is visited by Dracula and the Wolfman who are trying to cure their vampirism and lycanthropy. John Carradine, Glenn Strange, and Lon Chaney reprise their roles from The House of Frankenstein.
My Thoughts:
The sequel is even more wonderful monster mashup film. It has all the wonderful tropes of the era. There is one thing that always strikes me as unintentionally funny–a very polite mob.
I love this movie and it is also Norma’s favorite on the list. She questions the older vampires about things she witnessed in this movie.
Bela Lugosi is a vampire named Armand Tesla who is thwarted over the course of two wars by a doctor, Lady Jane Ainsley, played by Frieda Inescort. Lugosi basically plays the same characterization as Dracula, but due to copyright issues, he is Aramand Tesla.
My Thoughts:Â
This is another movie I really enjoyed. Inescort plays an educated doctor who is also a successful, loving mother. Obviously, she is a privileged woman, but it’s always nice to see an educated adult woman, who raised a son on her own, being the smartest one on the screen. Her aging makeup was well-done and restrained.
Other than a few moments of overacting at the first death of Tesla, the werewolf character, Andreas, is another standout. His acting is subtle even through his wolf makeup, and there are so many moments the audience feels for him.
John Abbot plays Webb Fallon, a nightclub owner and occult expert who offers advice on some murders. He falls in love with the ingenue. Loosely based on the 1819 short story “The Vampyre” by John Polidori.
My Thoughts:
The film hits several ingenue threatened by vampire stuff, but I felt this movie was somewhat forgettable and had very little tension. Even when the scene was supposed to be tense.
This is the last vampire Bela Lugosi played, but the first of several films in which the comedy duo, Abbot and Costello, meets classic Universal’s monsters and characters from their films. They and their friends encounter an evil doctor, Dracula, Frankenstein’s monster, and the Wolf Man.
My Thoughts:
The chemistry between Abbot and Costello makes for good comedy, even if the comedy itself isn’t evergreen. The actors who play monsters play their roles straight from their respective films. There is also an uncredited cameo of Vincent Price as the voice of the Invisible Man.
My name is Norma Mae Rollins. I’m fourteen and an illegal vampire. I miss my mom, but new ghoulish appetites force me to remain with my creator.
Bill didn’t mean to transform me. At least, that’s what he claims. His frightening temper, relentless lies, and morbid scientific experiments makes it hard to know what to believe. However, someone snitched about Bill’s experiments to a nearby coven. Now both of our corpses will burn.
Bill won’t run. He is curious what happens to a vampire after final death. I don’t want to die again. It hurt so much the first time. Bill thinks his vampire boyfriend might shelter me. I must brave an eternal existence with elder vampires and other monsters who don’t think I ought to exist. Oh and figure out who I am allowed to eat.
BIO: Much to her chagrin, Elizabeth Guizzetti discovered she was not a cyborg and growing up to be an otter would be impractical, so began writing stories at age twelve. Three decades later, Guizzetti is an illustrator and author best known for her demon-poodle based comedy, Out for Souls & Cookies. She is also the creator of Faminelands and Lure and collaborated with authors on several projects including A is for Apex and The Prince of Artemis V. To explore a different aspect of her creativity, she writes science fiction and fantasy. Her debut novel, Other Systems, was a 2015 Finalist for the Canopus Award for excellence in Interstellar Fiction. Her short work has appeared in anthologies such as Wee Folk and The Wise and Beyond the Hedge. She loves vampires and after writing Immortal House, she has written”‹ several other vampire stories in the same universe. Guizzetti lives in Seattle with her husband and two dogs. When not writing or illustrating, she loves hiking and birdwatching.
Guest Post: Eric Schwitzgebel Gives One-Point-Five Cheers for a Hugo Award for a TV Show about Ethicists' Moral Expertise
When The Good Place episode “The Trolley Problem” won one of science fiction’s most prestigious awards, the Hugo, in the category of best dramatic presentation, short form, I celebrated. I celebrated not because I loved the episode (in fact, I had so far only seen a couple of The Good Place‘s earlier episodes) but because, as a philosophy professor aiming to build bridges between academic philosophy and popular science fiction, the awarding of a Hugo to a show starring a professor of philosophy discussing a famous philosophical problem seemed to confirm that science fiction fans see some of the same synergies I see between science fiction and philosophy.
I do think the synergies are there and that the fans see and value them ““ as also revealed by the enduring popularity of The Matrix, and by West World, and Her, and Black Mirror, among others ““ but “The Trolley Problem”, considered as a free-standing episode, fumbles the job. (Below, I will suggest a twist by which The Good Place could redeem itself in later episodes.)
Yeah, I’m going to be fussy when maybe I should just cheer and praise. And I’m going to take the episode more philosophically seriously than maybe I should, treating it as not just light humor. But taking good science fiction philosophically seriously is important to me ““ and that means engaging critically. So here we go.
The Philosophical Trolley Problem
The trolley problem ““ the classic academic philosophy version of the trolley problem ““ concerns a pair of scenarios.
In one scenario, the Switch case, you are standing beside a railroad track watching a runaway railcar (or “trolley”) headed toward five people it will surely kill if you do nothing. You are standing by a switch, however, and you can flip the switch to divert the trolley onto a side track, saving the five people. Unfortunately, there is one person on the side track who will be killed if you divert the trolley. Question: Should you flip the switch?
In another scenario, the Push case, you are standing on a footbridge when you see the runaway railcar headed toward the five people. In this case, there is no switch. You do, however, happen to be standing beside a hiker with a heavy backpack, who you could push off the bridge into the path of the trolley, which will then grind to a halt on his body, killing him and saving the five. (You are too light to stop the trolley with your own body.) He is leaning over the railing, heedless of you, so you could just push him over. Question: Should you push the hiker?
The interesting thing about these problems is that most people say it’s okay to flip the switch in Switch but not okay to push the hiker in Push, despite the fact that in both cases you appear to be killing one person to save five. Is there really a meaningful difference between the cases? If so, what is it? Or are our ordinary intuitions about one or the other case wrong?
It’s a lovely puzzle, much, much debated in academic philosophy, often with intricate variations on the cases. (Here’s one of my papers about it.)
The Problem with “The Trolley Problem”
“The Trolley Problem” episode nicely sets up some basic trolley scenarios, adding also a medical case of killing one to save five (an involuntary organ donor). The philosophy professor character, Chidi, is teaching the material to the other characters.
Spoilers coming.
The episode stumbles by trying to do two conflicting things.
First, it seizes the trope of the philosophy professor who can’t put his theories into practice. The demon Michael sets up a simulated trolley, headed toward five victims, with Chidi at the helm. Chidi is called on to make a fast decision. He hesitates, agonizing, and crashes into the five. Micheal reruns the scenario with several variations, and it’s clear that Chidi, faced with a practical decision requiring swift action, can’t actually figure out what’s best. (However, Chidi is clear that he wouldn’t cut up a healthy patient in an involuntary organ donor case.)
Second, incompatibly, the episode wants to affirm Chidi’s moral expertise. Michael, the demon who enjoys torturing humans, can’t seem to take Chidi’s philosophy lessons seriously, despite Chidi’s great knowledge of ethics. Michael tries to win Chidi’s favor by giving him a previously unseen notebook of Kant’s, but Chidi, with integrity that I suppose the viewer is expected to find admirable, casts the notebook aside, seeing it as a bribe. What Chidi really wants is for Michael to recognize his moral expertise. At the climax of the episode, Michael seems to do just this, saying:
Oh, Chidi, I am so sorry. I didn’t understand human ethics, and you do. And it made me feel insecure, and I lashed out. And I really need your help because I feel so lost and vulnerable.
It’s unclear from within the episode whether we are supposed to regard Michael as sincere. Maybe not. Regardless, the viewer is invited to think that it’s what Michael should say, what his attitude should be ““ and Chidi accepts the apology.
But this resolution hardly fits with Chidi’s failure in actual ethical decision making in the moment (a vice he also reveals in other episodes). Chidi has abstract, theoretical knowledge about ethical quandaries such as the trolley problem, and he is in some ways the most morally admirable of the lead characters, but his failure in vividly simulated trolley cases casts his practical ethical expertise into doubt. Nothing in the episode satisfactorily resolves that practical challenge to Chidi’s expertise, pro or con.
Ethical Expertise?
Now, as it happens, I am the world’s leading expert on the ethical behavior of professional ethicists. (Yes, really. Admittedly, the competition is limited.)
The one thing that shows most clearly from my and others’ work on this topic, and which is anyway pretty evident if you spend much time around professional ethicists, is that ethicists, on average, behave more or less similarly to other people of similar social background ““ not especially better, not especially worse. From the fact that Chidi is a professor of ethics, nothing in particular follows about his moral behavior. Often, indeed, expertise in philosophical ethics appears to become expertise in constructing post-hoc intellectual rationales for what you were inclined to do anyway.
I hope you will agree with me about the following, concerning the philosophy of philosophy: Real ethical understanding is not a matter of what words you speak in classroom moments. It’s a matter of what you choose and what you do habitually, regardless of whether you can tell your friends a handsome story about it, grounded in your knowledge of Kant. It’s not clear that Chidi does have especially good ethical understanding in this practical sense. Moreover, to the extent Chidi does have some such practical ethical understanding, as a somewhat morally admirable person, it is not in virtue of his knowledge of Kant.
Michael should not be so deferential to Chidi’s expertise, and especially he should not be deferential on the basis of Chidi’s training as a philosopher. If, over the seasons, the characters improve morally, it is, or should be, because they learn from the practical situations they find themselves in, not because of Chidi’s theoretical lessons.
How to Partly Redeem “The Trolley Problem”
Thus, the episode, as a stand-alone work, is flawed both in plot (the resolution at climax failing to answer the problem posed by Chidi’s earlier practical indecisiveness) and in philosophy (being too deferential to the expertise of theoretical ethicists, in contrast with the episode’s implicit criticism of the practical, on-the-trolley value of Chidi’s theoretical ethics).
When the whole multi-season arc of The Good Place finally resolves, here’s what I hope happens, which in my judgment would partly redeem “The Trolley Problem”: Michael turns out, all along, to have been the most ethically insightful character, becoming Chidi’s teacher rather than the other way around.
Bio: Eric Schwitzgebel is a professor of philosophy at University of California, Riverside, and a cooperating member of UCR’s program in Speculative Fiction and Cultures of Science. His short fiction has been published in Clarkesworld, F&SF, and elsewhere. He regularly blogs at The Splintered Mind on topics in philosophy, psychology, and science fiction. His third book, tentatively titled Jerks, Zombie Robots, and Other Philosophical Misadventures is forthcoming with MIT Press.
On my darker days, I tend to turn to accounts from other people who lived through uncertain or frightening times. Victor Frankl’s Man’s Search for Meaning comes to mind, or going further back, something like Pandaemonium by Humphrey Jennings. An obvious place to look for historical parallels right now is back to our most famous pandemic, even if our perception of those times isn’t entirely accurate. These books and essays don’t offer answers, per se, but they do provide that all important connection: other people have been in a crucible and survived, and maybe you can too.
BIO: Chandra Clarke (she/her) is the author of the Pundragon (available August 10), a cli-fi book disguised as a humorous fantasy. You can find her blog at www.chandrakclarke.com or say hi on Twitter at @chandraclarke.
When 
Bio: Eric Schwitzgebel is a professor of philosophy at University of California, Riverside, and a cooperating member of UCR’s program in Speculative Fiction and Cultures of Science. His short fiction has been published in Clarkesworld, F&SF, and elsewhere. He regularly blogs at
One Response