Nothing says "post-apocalyptic cyberpunk mercenary" like a bulletproof bed.  As this post on Switched.com points out, it's ideal for those of us who routinely bunk down in war zones.  I suppose it's easier to conceal from your neighbors than a bunker, but that's about its only selling feature.

Even assuming you have about 160,000.00 to spend on a bed--and what self respecting post-apocalyptic cyberpunk mercenary doesn't--it's not very practical.  The bed weighs about 2,000 pounds, which means it's hardly mobile.  If you want to sleep in it, then you have to sleep in the same place every night.  As fans of the post-apocalyptic genre know, mobility is the key to sustainability.  People who hole up in one place usually don't stay alive very long.  Terry Brooks makes the point, in The Elves of Cintra, that whatever safety a fortress offers is illusory.  The very walls you hide behind advertise your location to your enemy. 

Moreover, although the bed comes with a DVD player, PC hookup and microwave, it doesn't come with its own power source.  WTF?  How, exactly, do you power up these gizmos?  Assuming your current home is so war torn that you really, genuinely need to sleep in a bulletproof bed, and conditions are so unsafe that you can't even walk a few feet to heat up your canned stew, Con Ed probably isn't making a cameo. 

The chemical toilet isn't such a hot option, either.  I mean, come on--chemicals or no, its still a toilet and, in the long term, a health hazard.  Hell, in the short term.  And, do you really want to sleep with your head next to your toilet, night after night?  Come on, whoever designed this bed was on crack. 

Sure, bunkers are sort of outré.  And, if you build one, you're going to be "that" brother in law, the one your family loves but also sort of avoids.  But, when it comes to hardcore preparation, a bunker is the only way to go.  You need adequate storage and living space, way more than any bed--even one this expensive--can provide.  And, hey, if the apocalypse comes, you're going to become the belle of the ball really quickly.  You can tell them all, "I told you so" over canned stew.

io9 has a great list of rules for writers of short stories/fiction.  The list is geared toward science fiction stories, but it could easily be applied to fantasy shorts as well.  For instance, the seventh rule,

Don't confuse your gimmick with your plot. You may have a great idea for a piece of future technology, or some amazing mutation that turns a whole bunch of people into musicvores who survive by eating your memories of rock concerts. Maybe you have the most original basic premise evar -- but that's not your plot. Your plot is how your new widget changes the people in your story, and how it affects their lives. Or what decisions your people make as a result of this new technological breakthrough.

could as easily be applied to magic in a fantasy story.  A cool magical ability does not a plot make.

Science Fiction Quarterly (SFQuarterly.net) is a brand new online science fiction magazine that is currently accepting submissions for its premier issue, scheduled for a March debut.  They are looking for short stories, reviews, and "think pieces" -- essays on the genre.  The magazine, in the classic sci-fi "short story tradition," is especially interested in working with new and inexperienced writers to bring their vision to publication.  The submissions guidelines are worth reading for any aspiring writer.

I emailed the editor, Glover Wright, and asked whether they were interested in stories in the fantasy genre.  He responded by saying that while they were not interested in straight fantasy, they would be willing to publish fantasy with science fiction elements and "fantasy that relies more on hypotheticals than, say, magic."

For aspiring writers in these genres, it doesn't get much better than an up-and-coming publication ready and willing to make room for new authors.

Be sure to read their blog for the latest news.

In the spirit of our continuing discussion of genre, Al Robertson writes about popular misconceptions of the differences between fantasy and science fiction over at his blog Allumination.  In response to the argument that fantasy is "innately conservative," focusing solely and often inaccurately on the past, while science fiction is progressive and real, Robertson writes:

Science Fiction can act as propaganda for science, but it cannot honestly lay claim to the realist authority that is innate in science. The fundamental aims of science – the development and propagation of an objectively true, reproducible worldview – are in opposition to the fundamental aims of fiction – the development and propagation of a personally true, unique worldview.

In this context, the claim that SF is superior to Fantasy because it is a more accurate reflection of the potentials and realities of the world is meaningless. Science can seed fiction, but it can’t (by definition) be fiction.

He goes on to bolster the importance of fantasy as a modern art form:

We live in a world where fantastic rhetoric is far more successful than scientific rhetoric. You don’t believe me? Watch some ads. Rooted in Surrealist shock tactics, the language of advertising is built on entirely fantasised imagery that presents individual brands as the kinds of crusading , transcendental superheroes that critics of Fantasy condemn. More broadly, check out modern political rhetoric. There, too, is fantasy; a conscious, ongoing project to present the world as politicians would like it to be, rather than to engage with it as it is.

Robertson concludes that fantasy, even more than sci-fi, is perhaps the more relevant response to the modern situation.  The entire essay is worth reading.

Via SFFWorld.com.

The Star Wars prequels might be the most unmercifully criticized body of work in science fiction and fantasy today -- justifiably, for the most part.  But I have always felt that fans' rage over the wooden acting, terrible dialogue, over-usage of CGI, and unsatisfactory story-telling has overshadowed the redeeming aspects of the movies.  They are few, but they are there.  Since Star Wars has just as often been characterized as fantasy as it has as sci-fi and since we do reserve some room on this website for science fiction either way, I thought the Bard the perfect place to defend those precious few things about Episodes I, II, and III that make them worth watching.