Cometary Tales Aeromen Nation,Blog Aeromen Take the First Playoff Game, by Mike Green

Aeromen Take the First Playoff Game, by Mike Green

Here is some feedback from the game. I kept score of Layin’ Pipe when they batted. Susan, the acting manager, kept score of the Aeromen and has the batting stats. The game was played on Field 5 so we expected a low scoring affair. The Aeromen led the entire game for a efficient and satisfying 5-3 playoff victory. A blend of 7 veteran (i.e. older) Aeromen and 4 younger so-called “Other” players (Jose, Nick, Ulongo(?), and Mandy) provided the winning lineup. It was a fast paced win taking only 55 minutes.

Everyone contributed to the win. Alan (P) pitched a gem. He gave up only 2 earned runs. After the 4th hitter in the 1st inning, he retired the next 10 in a row. He only gave up 8 hits and only an one extra base hit, a double. Charlie (C) was his supporting battery mate. The defense was almost flawless. There were 14 fly outs and 7 ground outs. In the outfield, Antonio (LC) had 5 putouts, Ty (LF) 3, and Jim (RC) 1. In the infield, Jason (SS) was busy with 6 assists and 4 putouts, and Mike (3B) had an assist and a putout. He had the most creative play of the night when he dove to his left to snare a one-hop line drive, got to his knees, and shot put the ball to Ulongo for a force out at second base.

I asked our fans —OK, really our fan— to respond to such an artful win by the Aeromen. Vanessa stated matter-of-factly, “Isn’t that the way they’re suppose to play!”
That’s why we love the Aeromen Nation.

Next week we progress to Round 2 game, and with a win, to the Championship game. The Round 2 game is against New Market Mallers, who are 1st seed and had a bye.

Think: Aeromen are the Champions

The Scoop

 

 

(Note:  Detailed coverage of the Aeromen will occasionally appear in these pages.  Guest authors retain copyright.  Less-detailed game reports can be found on the team’s Facebook page.)

You might also like to read:

On the Care and Feeding of Participial PhrasesOn the Care and Feeding of Participial Phrases

In some critique circles, shooting down misplaced modifiers has become a sporting activity. It’s fun, because they’re easy to spot and can be really funny. “The robber drove the getaway car in a batman costume” should make you smile at the image of a car cosplaying as The Batman. It’s logical that a modifier works best when it’s placed as close as possible to the thing it’s describing. For example, the descriptor “in a batman costume” should be next to “robber” and not “car.”

Unfortunately, a valuable writing tool—the participial phrase—is taking collateral damage.

An image of a 19th-century postcard showing three people "flying" with stiff airplane-like wings justting from ther sides, as they shoot at ducks in the sky.
An 1899 postcard by Jean-Marc CĂ´tĂŠ
(public domain, via Wikimedia Commons)

A participial phrase is a specialized modifier that conveys movement or change, often incorporating visual imagery and other details, while performing the duties of an adjective. This tool has its own grammar and punctuation rules. Like any modifier, it can be misplaced, but the writer has flexibility in its placement, supported by the unsung hero of grammar: the comma.

To be sure we’re all on the same page, let’s start with participles. A participle is what you get when you take a verb and use it as an adjective: drowned trees, running water, flying pigs, grown woman, billowing clouds. Look for the past- and present-tense endings.

A simple participle works just like an ordinary adjective and is placed exactly as you would expect. For example, “drowned trees” could be a more dramatic way to say “dead trees.” It’s not unique to English, but repurposing words is relatively common in our language. Apparently, we English-speakers are determined to keep turning one part of speech into another, as if we haven’t got enough words already. Verbing nouns is one of my pet peeves.

(Yes, I know. You saw what I did there.)

A participial phrase is both

  • a phrase with a participle in it, and
  • a phrase acting as an adjective, intended to describe the subject of a sentence.

For example, “acting as an adjective” is a participial phrase. So is, “intended to describe the subject of a sentence.”

To get a participial phrase, you build upon the participle:

Trees … drowned in the flood from the broken dam

Water … running over rocks and rills

Pigs … flying like eagles

Woman … grown wise in the ways of the world

Clouds … billowing like windblown sheets of satin (note the participle within this participial phrase)

Brilliant clouds sail high over the plains towards distant mountaints

Participles and participial phrases add flavor and texture to our sentences, and because they come from verbs, they help create a feeling of action. Questions arise when we go to put our nicely-constructed phrase into its sentence, because … where do we put the darned thing? You have three choices:

Leading: Billowing like windblown sheets of satin, the clouds sailed over the plains of Endor.

Subject-adjacent: The clouds, billowing like windblown sheets of satin, sailed over the plains of Endor.

Trailing: The clouds sailed over the plains of Endor, billowing like windblown sheets of satin.

Photo Credit: Jonathan C. Wheeler, CC BY SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons

(Note: these are my own terms. Reliable texts will say “at the beginning/in the middle/at the end.” yawn. Also, do not rail at me about the forests of Endor. This one is about the plains. Where, possibly, it rains. Like in Spain.)

Now … wait for it … here it comes:

If (and only if) you fail to properly punctuate a participial phrase, it becomes a misplaced modifier.

Technically, it’s a mispunctuated modifier, but to the reader, it’s confusing, and that’s why we care about misplaced modifiers. It occurs most often when the participial phrase is trailing. The separating comma before the phrase signals the reader that what follows describes the subject, in our example: clouds. Without the comma, you get:

The clouds sailed over the plains of Endor billowing like windblown sheets of satin.

Here, the reader is cast adrift and must grab for the nearest noun. While it may be possible that the plains of Endor billow, without other information, the reader will snicker, backtrack, guess what you mean, and move on, now somewhat annoyed by your absent comma.

Participial phrases bow to the humble comma or risk being misunderstood. For leading ones, you need a comma to close off the modifying phrase and move into the sentence proper. For subject-adjacent placement, commas—or their absence—are used intentionally to create subtle distinctions in meaning, distinguishing between essential description and nonessential elaboration.

A participial phrase placed next to the subject but without commas makes that descriptor an essential one. Consider:

The clouds billowing like windblown sheets of satin sailed over the plains of Endor.

Here the phrase is “essential” because it’s telling us that only those clouds that are billowing (yes, like satin) sail over the plains. Perhaps other clouds lie high in the stratosphere, unaffected by the winds below. If we put the commas back in, then we know the descriptor is colorful but nonessential. That is, we understand that all the clouds are sailing, though we pause in the middle of the sentence to enjoy the charming detail of their movement and sheen.

Placement at the beginning versus the end of a sentence allows us to create a sense of sequence, the order in which the storyteller wants the reader to experience each element. With the leading version of our Endorian sentence, the author wants you to take in the image of the shape and movement and texture of the clouds first, then imagine them sailing over the plains. It’s like when a child runs up to you with a remote-control toy and says “Look! Godzilla is driving this robot car! Isn’t it cool? Now watch what it can do!”

In contrast, with a trailing placement, the author nudges you to first realize that the clouds are sailing over the plains—maybe it’s important, because a party of adventurers must cross the stormy plain—and then lets you enjoy the clouds’ beauty. In our child’s-play example, first you are startled by a remote-control car zipping across the playground, and then a child is calling out “Wow! Cool! A robot car with Godzilla driving it!”

And now, don’t you want a robot car?

Me, too!

Were the plains of Endor too much? Let’s review, using a simpler situation. Imagine a romance in which a young woman has just learned her true love is about to sail away on a ship, and she’s hurried to the docks. She spots him boarding a vessel, but it’s way down on the pier. She has to run. She wants him to see her, but he’s too far away.

Here’s a mispunctuated participial phrase: Mun-Su ran down the dock waving to her departing lover.

We know the dock isn’t saying farewell to its lover, we know it’s Mun-Su, but as readers we don’t like to have to stop and think about it. Add the comma demanded by a trailing participial phrase, and all becomes clear as we yank out our hankies: Mun-Su ran down the dock, waving to her departing lover.

Of course, you could stick the participial phrase at the front: Waving to her departing lover, Mun-Su ran down the dock. Grammatically, this is correct, but we’ve defined a situation in which Mun-Su needs to get a move on first; her running is the critical action, because the lover won’t see her waving until she gets closer.

Further, what if you want to make the situation more complex? This is an important beat in the story. Surely, you want to share the character’s innermost feelings, her physical sensations at that moment: Her heart hammered like a steam piston as Mun-Su ran down the dock, waving to her departing lover.

Those unaware of the functionality of the participial phrase will point and cry, “You must place the phrase next to the subject.” Oh, my, but then you get: Her heart hammered like a steam piston as Mun-Su, waving to her departing lover, ran down the dock.

Poor Mun-Su is awkwardly waving, in a nonessential way, as she runs down the dock. Sadly, I’m not seeing a happily-ever-after now. Pass me the tissues.

I do hope you have enjoyed this little missive from the Grammar Police. We protect and serve … the text.

Further reading:

Clean examples and a bonus round on dangling modifiers from Grammar Monster: https://www.grammar-monster.com/glossary/participle_phrases.htm

Purdue University’s online writing lab explicating plenty of complexities in participles and their phrases: https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/mechanics/gerunds_participles_and_infinitives/participles.html

Don’t worry, Ha Mun-Su does get her happy ending eventually, and Won Jin-Ah won an award for her portrayal, too! https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7521898/

There May Be Spoilers: A Review of Building Baby Brother, by Steven RadeckiThere May Be Spoilers: A Review of Building Baby Brother, by Steven Radecki

Oh, my, let’s unpack this one. First off, this book is a good choice if you’re shopping for a scifi story for someone who maybe isn’t all that into science fiction but loves kids and understands the parenting life, or anyone who’s given any real thought to what artificial intelligence might be like and what it would mean for ordinary people.

Building Baby Brother is a story made for Silicon Valley parents—wherever they may live. It has such a multi-layered dimensionality, you’ll be peering at your neighbors, wondering if that’s them, if this story isn’t fiction, but thinly-veiled fact.

The story begins with a typical divorced father managing a well-ordered shared upbringing relationship for the child he and his ex are raising together…but separately. The ex has her issues, Dad has his failings, but they both care about Josh, a wonderful kid whose one ask is “when can I have a baby brother?”

Parents want to provide for their kids. Don’t they? And this dad, once he stops to think about it, realizes he has the capability to provide his son with some of what he needs: a companion to play with, a buddy to share secrets with, a fellow child to grow up with. Gavin is just what Josh needs. What Dad needs Josh to experience.

Wait….back up a minute there. Secrets? Before Dad knows it, Gavin’s doing things he hadn’t designed him for, because Josh taught him new things, ways to access information Dad didn’t think Baby Brother would need. But what were the kids to do when they needed to make just a few improvements to their favorite video game? What would a Silicon Valley kid do? Of course, they get online and add the mods they want. And Gavin’s got the inside track on modifying software, being mostly software himself.

Gavin is an AI. And also a child. And what does a child do best?

Learn. And what do you do for a child that needs to learn, who is a good person, one who’s your other child’s best friend?

You help. Of course. Because that’s what a parent does.

What follows shouldn’t be a spoiler, unless you failed to read the blurb on the book.

EXTREMELY MILD SPOILER ALERT.

Stop here if need be. Grab tissues if you’re ok with indirect spoilers.

What happens when a child has learned all they can from their parents?

You mean when they’re all grown up?

<nods>

Oh. Right. That.

<holds out tissue box>

END OF SPOILER-ADJACENT MATERIAL

Building Baby Brother isn’t fear-the-AI, instead it drives straight to that point all parents say they’re working towards, but that tears them apart, all the same, when it finally happens. If you’re a crier, be sure you have tissues handy. If you’re a parent, be glad you have all those years ahead.

Or do you? It’s you, isn’t it, with the workshop and the spare parts and the know-how? Think, first. OK?

Convention Time is a-Coming, Ha-HaConvention Time is a-Coming, Ha-Ha

I’m all kinds of happy about convention time this year. It makes up for a lot of crummy stuff that happened in my little world in the first third of 2018.

BayCon programming liked some of my program ideas.  They even put some of them on the program! Even better, though a little scarier, they plunked me down as a panel member on two of them and asked me to moderate a third.  I’m getting better at this panel thing, though.  I’ve discovered I do have a few things to say, and I have managed to steer a group around to keep the panel on track or at least bring the quietest panelist back into the conversation.  I’m solidly on science track this year, so I will make sure to brush up on my Real Facts before I show up.

Here’s my schedule, just in case anyone’s looking for me.  Or at least so I have a place I can look this stuff up, myself:

What?Who?
Sunday, May 27 at 1 pm
Science and Politics in the USA: Latter Day Lysenkoism?

Can US science recover from the anti-science policies of politicians? Where will the damage be most significant?
Edward Kukla
(educator, biologist, mathematician, a moderator who knows how to make Ph.D.’s behave themselves)
Bradford Lyau, Ph.D.
(historian, political activist, literary analyst)
Vanessa MacLaren-Wray, Ph.D.
(science activist, writer, engineer)
Howard Davidson, Ph.D.
(turns science fiction into real-world stuff)
Sunday, May 27 at 4 pm
Bad Science: Pseudoscience, Hoaxes, and Illogical Thinking

When we’re reading or writing science fiction, we’ve got some poetic license, but we want the science to be fundamentally right.
When looking for science resources, how do we winnow the chaff from the wheat?
As a bonus, really bad science and hoaxers provide excellent fodder for parody SF.
(I’m a big fan of Phil Plait, whose “Bad Astronomy ” column is a good example of this kind of thinking.)
Vanessa MacLaren-Wray, Ph.D.
(writer, mechanical engineer, writer, used to managing a roomful of smart guys)
Howard Davidson, Ph.D.
(physicist, inventor)
Arthur Bozlee
(aerospace entrepeneur, oughta have a Ph.D., should hire the rest of us)
Jim Doty, Ph.D.
(writer, electrical engineer)
Monday, May 28 at 11:30 am
Wild Weather

For the first time, science can show
that three extreme weather events would not have happened without global warming,
including the rain bomb that drowned Houston.
We’re also seeing tropical cyclones cross into the Bering Sea,
and cold snaps bringing snow to the deep south.
What can we expect to happen with tornadoes?
Patricia MacEwen
(writer, physical anthropologist who also uses her knowledge for our kind of stories, all-around awesome person)
Vanessa MacLaren-Wray, Ph.D.
(writer, engineer working on energy efficiency to fight climate change)
Heidi Stauffer, Ph.D.
(real-life educator and environmental geologist, i.e., this stuff is her field exactly)

My BayCon program schedule has some holes in it, so I plan to take some time and scoot down to Fanime that same weekend.  I love the costumes, and I’ve lately acquired a taste for Japanese pop music, and have even watched some of the anime (especially, of course, the science fiction) that rolls through on Netflix.  I have an in-house anime expert who can give me insider tips so I don’t have to watch everything to find what I’ll like.

WorldCon is in San Jose this year!  I am so stoked!  I submitted some program ideas to that group as well, though haven’t had any feedback from them.  Though I don’t expect to actually be on program, if they use any of my ideas I will be sure to go around claiming credit for them.  I’m finally paid up on my membership (thank heavens for installment plans).  My last WorldCon was in Spokane, and that trip was super-fun, but it kind of broke the family bank.  With the con in San Jose, it’s an easy daily commute.  Niiiiice.

Al Gore sitting with Angie Coiro on a stage with a screen behind them and cups on a table in between their chairs. Angie is holding her laptop computer as she listens to Al answer a question.
Climate science advocacy up close and personal. (Al Gore and Angie Coiro, December 7, 2017)

Al Gore won’t be coming to BayCon, but we’ll do our best to cover for him.

© 2012-2026 Vanessa MacLaren-Wray All Rights Reserved