On this occasion, as we swing into a 2024 that cannot evade its destiny to be 'historic,' let me turn attention to something apolitical...
... the art and skill of writing credible fiction.
Many of you already know my more general site of Advice to Rising Writers. But offered here below is a supplement - a cluster of specific tricks of the trade.
But first...
Here's a link to a recording of the first public performance of my play “The Escape,” on November 7 at Caltech. A 'reading' but fully dramatized, well-acted and directed by Joanne Doyle*. The recording is of middling quality, but shows great audience reactions. Come have some good, impudently theological fun! You can also read the script of The Escape: A Confrontation in Four Scenes - available on Amazon.
And now, for you would-be Great Writers...
== The "Advice to New Writers of SF" packet from David Brin ==
This is a ‘canned’ general essay about tricks and skills of writing. It's not an instruction manual to become a great author! More a compilation of ‘wisdom’ chunks about some common mistakes often trip up would-be novelists etc.
Many have have told me they found this advice useful in their writers’ journey. You can find more for authors on my website. Let's begin:
Naturally, it’s terrific that you are writing and I do want to offer encouragement! Still, there is good news and bad news in this modern era. The good: there are so many new ways to get heard, or read, or published that any persistent person can get ‘out there.’ Talent and good ideas will see the light of day!
The bad news? it’s now so easy to get "published," bypassing traditional channels, that millions get to convince themselves "I am a published author!" without passing through the old grinding mill, where my generation honed our skills by dint of relentless workshopping, criticism, rejection, revision and pain.
This is not meant to be discouraging! In fact I am appending (below) a slug of 'generic advice'... much of it probably already below your level! Still, some items may not be. In fact, many published authors have found these insights helpful. I hope you will. But either way, do persevere.
Again, let me point you to an "advice article" that I've posted online, containing a distillation of wisdom and answers to questions I've been sent across 20 years. (Note, most authors never answer at all.) This article is at: http://www.davidbrin.com/advice.htm
I can also offer a general site containing advice bits from other top writers.
In this collection of writing tips, I especially recommend the short how-to books of my colleague Nancy Kress, such as Beginnings, Middles & Ends. Also The Craft of Writing Science Fiction that Sells, by Ben Bova. And The Illustrated Guide to Creating Imaginative Fiction, by J. VanderMeer.
Then there is my advice video!
And some from Robert Heinlein (via J Pournelle)
But let’s get started on this list of specific examples: things that (alas) even very talented neo-authors do, all too often.
== The biggest problem ==
Skills at rapid-opening, point-of-view, showing-not-telling, action, evading passive-voice and so on are achieved by studied workshopping and -- as in most arts -- the whole thing is predicated upon ineffable things like talent, e.g. an ear for dialogue that only some people have. Indeed, point-of-view is so hard that half of would-e writers never "get" it, no matter how many years they put in.
* By far the most important pages are the first ones, when you hook the reader. And you need a great first paragraph to get them to read the first page. Starting with the Pov’s (Point of View character’s) name is certainly okay… even Heinlein did it now and then. (Though just the first name suffices; leave the last name for later.) Still, it is often better to start with an italicized internal thought, or an ironic observation, or spoken words or actions. See an example, below.
* Reiterating that key point: POV (point of view) is among the hardest things for most new writers to master. It gives your characters a “voice,” and presence and offers the reader a sense of vesting in the protagonist’s feelings and needs and will. This is all ruined by authorial data-dumps that make you feel lectured-to by a narrator! It's better to reveal info as efficiently as possible via conversation, action and the point of view character's internal thoughts.
Yes, you have a lot of information to deliver! You want the reader to know all about your precious character and world and situation, I get it. But be patient and tell as little of that as you can get away with, while hooking the reader's curiosity to learn more.
One great way to break the bad habit of narrator dumps is to develop visceral discomfort with three words: ‘were,’ 'was,’ and especially ‘had.'
Oh, sure — “had”, “were” and “was” are permitted. They are even sometimes necessary! But you should find each use regrettable. Each time should cause a wee bit of pain! Because ‘had’ – and to a lesser extent “was” — often indicates that the narrator, instead of the point of view character (or pov) is dumping or explaining, instead of showing.
If you look at my books, you'll find I include lots of ideas and background of past events, but I pace them in with movement, action, conversation and internal thoughts.
Seriously. right now go to your draft and do a global search for ‘had.’ (And the even-worse apostrophe-d -- 'd -- ick!). Then global-search "was." Do the pages light up? Now do the same thing with your favorite novels, by authors you admire. I think you'll get the point.
== Example illustrating many of the points above ==
Here’s an excerpt - the opening line for a novel that someone sent to me, asking for advice:
Captain Bara Brakin hated the noise and turmoil of crowds, yet now she was stuck on crowd control in a busy tunnel-street of Deep Kinshasa while her patrol ship was in spacedock for repairs. She'd joined Solar Space Force to get away from Earth cities, and the effect of crowds on her magneto-psi sense. She'd loved every minute of her month of relative quiet on pirate patrol in the asteroids.
Notice especially the telltale narrator dump cues of "had" and "was" and "were" and “‘d”.
Were you vexed to see the word 'patrol' repeated in a single paragraph? Repeatitis is a far lesser sin. In fact there's no reason to diss Hemingway for ignoring the rule habitually! Still, many readers dislike it. Also, beginning with the character's full name isn't generally advisable.
Okay, let’s see if we can convey all the same information (and more from later paragraphs) dynamically by removing any presence of the narrating author.
Try this instead:
Damn I hate crowd control duty.
Over the tunnel noise and throng confusion of Deep New Delhi, Kara could barely hear her sergeant growl in agreement, as if reading her mind.
“How long till the ship is fixed cap? I didn’t join SSF for this shit.”
Of course it was a coincidence – Gomez didn’t have her magneto-psi sense.
“Belay that,” She snapped. “Well be back out there on comfy pirate patrol in no time.”
Do you see how I dumped in far more information via internal (italicized) thoughts, sensory input and conversation, without once using “had” or even “was”? Now add some spicey action… someone in the crowd throws something... and you’ve started rolling along, supplying lots of background info without an intruding narrator dump!
Again (because these lessons only sink in from repetition) do a global search of your MS for "had" and "was" and "were." Every single instance should prompt: "Can I tell this another way? Or even NOT tell it, or let that info float in, later?" Try it. You'll write better stuff.
== Generic advice blips ==
* All else being equal, it's best to stick with... and master ... standard storytelling techniques before branching off boldly in new directions. Hence third-person in the immediate-past tense, with almost invisible narrator, is generally a good old style to use, especially your first few outings. (And it is preferred in the Out of Time series of YA novels I use to mentor new writers.) First-person immediate-past is also fine (I've used it a lot) though it requires care in POV and has traps to evade.
Lately we've all been seeing a lot of works in present tense. Yes, this can be done well (e.g. Vonnegut) and times do change, I guess. But far more often present tense invites authorial data dumps, POV flipping and nagging intrusions by an omniscient narrator, leaving us detached from the protagonist character. I don't like it, much.
* As noted, many readers hate “repeatitis” where a word gets repeated a lot. Even twice can be reader-irritating. English is so rich with synonyms and alternate ways of saying the same thing, that you can usually avoid it, unless repetition is a deliberate poetical device.
This stricture has no strong reason for it. As I said, authors like Hemingway violated it a lot. But most professionals cater to this common reader whim. And hence, you’ll pick up a habit of minimizing even too many close repeats of “the.”
* Prologues can be nice, if short. But often they serve as crutches.
* One problem I used to see a lot, but perhaps less-so today, is excessive use of adjectives and flowery prose. Still, keep an eye out for it.
* Want a simple trick to learn master craft? Find a dozen openings of novels you greatly admire and RE-TYPE THE FIRST COUPLE OF PAGES to see how that author did it! Just re-reading those pages will not work! I guarantee you will only understand how those authors did it if you retype the opening scene, passing the words through your fingers.
And you’ll grasp that establishing POV early while minimizing data dumping is the hardest thing for neos to learn, yet absolutely essential. No matter how wonderful your ideas are, they are useless unless you master how to hook.
Talk this over with your colleagues. Read aloud together and critique the first 5 paragraphs of lots of writers. Do nothing else in your workshop, till you all understand how to establish both the scene/situation and POV laced into conversation, action and internal thoughts.
*OVERALL WRITING RHYTHM: For novels:
Work out a significant part of the setting and plot elements, particularly socio-political dynamics of the world, as foundation. I do a lot of this in my head. But feel free to chart it out, as Heller and Vonnegut did!
-Start with interesting characters but don't get too specific till THEY start speaking up with their concerns and idiosyncrasies.
-Try to start with a scene that grabs readers with action and/or vivi imagery and a world and character they want to learn more about.
-Write about 30,000 words, then circulate a draft to consult with beta readers and experts for help refining setting and plot elements. Anything that confuses these readers "is my fault."
-Revise those first 30,000 words with all you've learned, esp. about the characters... and then continue forward, adding 30,000 words.
-Consult with more beta readers, do another revision of all 60K... then add 30,000 words, and spin and repeat until complete. This pattern works for me because "my openings are the weakest part of the process so they get reworked till they pop. I write endings that work first draft. A different rhythm works for different authors.
* Finally, there are many other sources of good writing wisdom! One of the best is by my friend and colleague and ought-to-be-Grand Master of SF Nancy Kress, who details how you can create a main character readers won't forget and plant essential information about a character's past into a story? I cannot recommend this one too highly! See "Write Great Fiction: Characters, Emotion & Viewpoint."
* Author James Murdo offers this handy tool to make a Glossary for your novel.
Oh, there’s so much more that I discuss when teaching workshops. General skills and tricks specific to science fiction. Like why you should make your first novel a murder mystery!
Alas, though, that’s all I have time for. Still, I hope it’s been useful. Remember to read carefully my “advice article” at http://www.davidbrin.com/advice.htm, where there are links to the advice missives by many other successful authors… and some disagree with me on every point raised here!
Above all keep at it! That’s the key to success, even more important than “seek feedback!”
Persevere.
Good luck!
With best wishes, for a confident and ambitious 21st Century,
David Brin
* (Note, for copyright reasons video of "The Escape" goes silent, omitting some of the wonderfully apropos background music! For example after scene 2 (The Stones “Sympathy for the Devil;”) and at the end, when you see the audience cheering silently during “You Gotta Have Heart!” the great song from Damn Yankees, related to the theme of the play. Pity! Still, I think you’ll laugh a few times… or go “Huh!”)
143 comments:
from the last thread RE: “So far.....eeeeehhhh.”
Here’s some eeeeehhh.
Imagine the KC Chiefs make the Super Bowl this year and play the SF 49ers. Leading up Taylor Swifts tells her social media fans to assemble in Vegas and ENSURE the Lombardy Trophy awarded to the winning team lands with her boyfriend Travis Kelce!
KC is down by 17 points with under 5 minutes in the 4th. On social media, Swift tells her fans “the Lombardi is ours!” and to “storm the field” and “do whatever it takes to win the war!” As game time expires, 10,0000 + Swifties storm and occupy the field for 7 hours. Despite a cache of Hello Kitty AR-15s across the strip at the Excalibur, the “unarmed” Swifties spontaneously use make-shift weapons in overrunning the gridiron. While many attempt to asphyxiate NFL personell with clear plastic handbags, others use toxic cosmetic accessories and canisters of estrogen spray. “We are going to hang Roger Goodell from that big yellow thing!” screams one. In the ensuing melee 5 people die: one courageous Swiftie, after attempting to smash a barricaded locker room to choke Andy Reid, drowns in a 10-gallon Gatorade jug. (The Gatorade/blood-contamination will later tie up several courts in prop-bet litigation to determine if the color of the G-sauce was actually red, blue or purple.) Meanwhile, a referee and equipment manager both develop Gynecomastia from the estrogen spray. Also 138 police officers and security personal are injured but nobody gives a shit except their families. Later the Swifties will place windshield decals depicting Calvin pissing on the NFL shield. Militant Swift Sororities will also hoist pink & blue American flags from their cars promoting law and order together with breast cancer awareness. Law-abiding citizens respecting the police and hating breast cancer will feel uneasy given the cognitive dissonance unpacked in such misanthropic appropriations.
For the next 3 years, T. Swift, while waning in mainstream popularity, will continue grifting off her fanatics, targeting surprisingly large demographic of fans who represent A∩B; with A being HS graduates who failed a PE class and B being HS graduates who went to their counselor to cry and request switching teachers so they could color maps rather than face the demands of critical thinking. Meanwhile, T. Swift will deny any culpability in the “spontaneous” and “non-violent” post game “protest.” Her lawyers will claim that the real perpetrators were actually degenerate Jonathan Swifties and it was in fact sexist persecution. While some of the T. Swift fans who “participated” in the tourist visit to the field will face prosecution, Taylor’s affluence deflects legal consequences. Besides, 5 SC justices are fans as well as Katerina Tikhonova, (Putin’s acrobat daughter) who vows to end America by moving the Green Bay Packer to Yekaterinburg via a share-holder takeover. As Super Bowl LXI nears, the NFL promotes a fan’s choice half-time show entertainer TBD by ballot during a ballet hosted by each of the 32 franchises. Swift proclaims that if voters choose her as entertainer she will remain on stage for perpetuity and that NFL will be destroyed as an institution. Even more troubling, Taylor's social messaging invokes the inflammatory language of Simone de Beauvoir amplified by Russian bots trying to promote an alliance between Swift and Tikhonova.
With the election ballet nearing, the owners of the New England Patriots and Denver Broncos declare that Swift’s actions both past and current violate Code of Conduct both as a Fan and Personal which precludes her from being a choice on the ballot.
...and THAT is “just a little anti Democracy and all.”
Some interesting points to ponder.
Neil Gaiman's online masterclass is also pretty good (as it should be for the price. Still, you to view other masterclasses for 12 months as well). As a fine tune, I would advise reading your stuff out loud. How wheezy and blue in the face it makes you is a good way to gauge sentence structure.
My daughter spent VCE in Covid lockdown and the subsequent year recuperating from a nasty illness. She spent it writing one and a half novels of a fantasy trilogy. Despite explaining the value of feedback, I haven't been privileged to see it yet. I gather she's re-read some of it and wondered what on Earth she was thinking in places.
(She is also a Taylor Swift fan ;-)
As for me, I did manage to gather my learning and submit a story to Grist's Climate 2200. It was good enough to get through... the first round of judging. Progress, I suppose. As David says, perseverance is the thing.
Of the two fiction passages you publish here, the first has one advantage: right away we learn the protagonist's full name.
We could do the same for the second passage by starting it with:
Captain Bara Brankin thought, "Damn, I hate crowd-control duty."
Happy New Year Everybody!!
I disagree with Paradoctor's advice.
We don't need to know the character's full name and rank in the first paragraph, and it makes the text flow less well to add it.
At some point in the coming pages that can be added organically: "Captain Brakin reporting as requested", someone referring to her as "Captain Brakin", or some such.
"Explain less; show more" (or "show, don't tell", as the saying goes) is almost always the best advice.
duncan cairncross:
Happy New Year Everybody!!
New Years Day on a site with posts from multiple countries is like a time machine. I can speak to you from back here in 2023.
Larry Hart: I can speak to you from back here in 2023
Hands down better than my contribution. I mostly speak from 1970, the birth year of both FORTH and PROLOG. We each have our own shining city on a hill.
@scidata,
I assume you're familiar with the movie Somewhere In Time? My cynical plan for a Trump reelection in 2020, which is also my plan for 2024, is to surround myself with relics from the summer of 1977 until I travel back there, and then stay forever. And I wouldn't make the mistake of leaving my cell-phone turned on or anything of that sort.
Paradoctor I don't need her full name. I need to be INSIDE her head from the very first moment and SHE is not thinkin her last name. It's not on her mind... though her author - creator will provide it in a little while, as Greg suggests. In conversation.
re 2024... the year I predicted the Honda/Apply iCar....
Cure the world ... today!
Question for any US lawyers in CB.
In TV shows, a defense attorney will often stand up and declare, "I object!", whereupon the judge rules on the validity of the objection. But DT seems to be able to declare, "I appeal!" at any time DURING a trial and everything halts for weeks or months. WHY? HOW? WTF?
Aren't there any requirements of rights/jurisdiction/statute for such an interlocutory appeal? I'm with Scalia and Gorsuch on this - if it isn't explicitly in the text of any statute, then such an appeal is baseless and invalid.
I appreciate New Year's Day, and don't mean to yuck anyone's yum, especially on a very non-political thread.
I wish everyone a happy New Year, whether you're in 2024 already or still back here in 2023. I have a bit of anxiety over what may happen in the coming year, but then when hasn't that been the case? How's that for left-handed optimism?
Happy New Year.
(I also hope Alfred is just away enjoying family and not anything more serious than that).
Ok, one last hopeful message from Stonekettle:
https://www.stonekettle.com/2023/12/fear-hope-and-polling.html
...
My point here is: those polls? Yeah, polls are like the Bible, they tell you whatever you want to hear. Polls are absolute evidence of whatever narrative the shouty guy up front wants you to believe today. Tomorrow they'll be absolute evidence of exactly the opposite and no one will even notice the switcheroo.
Don't listen to the polls, they're trying to manipulate you, trying to make you confidently hopeful so you'll stay home because you believe the job is done, or trying to make you depressed and defeated so you'll stay home because the job isn't worth doing.
Don't listen. Don't listen to the talking heads, their only interest is rage, fear, and anger because that's what sells advertising copy. That's what makes them rich. The more terrible the world, the richer they get, so they have an interest in making the world seem a worse place.
Steady on, Folks. Be hopeful instead.
Show up and you'll win.
You want a better nation, be a better citizen.
Dr Brin:
Cure the world ... today!
At first glance, I thought you said "Curse the world." Which made me think of a variation on the Golem legend. It lumbers around causing harm because "Curse the world" is etched into its forehead...until some brave soul scratches out the "s", causing it to "Cure the world" instead.
Larry,
Family is visiting and my office is occupied by in-laws. I’ll be back soon. đ
Larry Niven wrote that he read his short stories out to house guests; if they understood them, he was writing well.
I imagine that would also be a way to get rid of house guests that won't leave; switch to reading parts of the "Gormenghast" trilogy or "The Brothers Karamazov".
(BTW, I consider both of those to be good writing, but styles and objectives do change.)
Pappenheimer
First Paragraph:
The River Leir runs broad and deep, so there are few fords across it into the Northmarch; only one was safe in the seasons when rain or snow-melt swelled the water. Nathan, his job done to the south, was crossing it to find another job, and found himself in chest-high water, his clothes, pack and bow balanced on an inflated skin. Wolf was paddling strenuously behind him, nose high and not happy. It was a chill cloudless night. Most men would have waited until daylight, but Nathan didn't care much anymore. The silver unicorn medallion strung around his neck glimmered in reflected moonlight.
woops, the above snippet was mine
Pappenheimer
Not bad!!
Happy New Year in Ukraine.
LH,
"Cure the world"... I hope the Golem isn't taking advice from Agent Smith:
"Humanity is a virus."
While I can see the reasons why we might be considered a virus on the biosphere, as a member of this particular infection I'm hoping to see a transition to a more commensal relationship.
Pappenheimer
Happy New Year in Britain.
The only times I’ve seen it work where a character’s full name was given up front involved military or courtroom stories. Stuff like that. Even then the name was ‘shown’.
A short short:
An older person falls dead , from their point of view, the earth falls away and spins out of sight, soon followed by the sun. A small divot in spacetime basks in starlight, while the sacred and profane alike decompose in the sun.
May the new year provide less inspiration for scatological humor.
Happy new year from Germany.
By deliberately defending the indefensible & playing the pest here for many years, I can honestly say that my interactions with Dr. Brin has made me a much better writer, especially if one compares my most recent attempts to my almost impenetrable 10 year old posts.
That said, I've made some personal resolutions for the New Year after a few minor epiphanies, the first epiphany having to do with personal anger issues & the second having to do with a singular incident that led directly to my loss of faith in science.
My first epiphany came yesterday when I was watching MSNBC compare & contrast the various electoral candidates for 2024, and I was struck by the uncanny parallels between their political commentary & the 'Upper Class Twit of the Year' sketch by Monty Python.
Only then did I realize that my recent blog comments had become increasingly nasty & mean spirited and, for this, I apologise. I have therefore resolved to refrain from further posting until either my attitude improves or the world ends, whichever comes soonest.
My second epiphany came early this morning, while recalling my halcyon days as a biochemistry graduate student doing pure research on tritium-labelled amino acids & wondering why tritium (an atom with a 12 day half-life) even exists, when I suddenly made a connection that has escaped me for almost 35 years.
At the University of Utah in 1989, Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons (using apparatus consisting of a palladium electrode & an electrolyte solution) reported the room-temperature appearance of anomalous heat & tritium molecules which they then attributed to COLD FUSION, an experimental claim that has never ever been scientifically confirmed or replicated.
Do you recall my recent reference to metal-induced catalysis of solubilised acidic H+ ions into neutrally-charged hydrogen gas at ambient temperatures, only to have it dismissed as "psuedo science"?
Well, here are three reputable scientific references to support my claims:
(1)Cobalt-based catalysts for water splitting
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2468606921002768
(2)Cobalt-Promoted Noble-Metal Catalysts for Efficient Hydrogen Generation
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.3c00047
(3)Hydrogen generation from water and magnesium catalyst reaction
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360319923037540
(4)Palladium catalyzes hydrogen production
https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2022/nj/d2nj03831e
I threw in that last reference on palladium in order to show that the University of Utah Cold Fusion experiment, mediated by its palladium electrode in an electrolyte suspension & resulting in tritium production, represents a simple misinterpretation of data, but NOT outright fraud, leaving the way open for the catalytic production of cheap hydrogen gas, tritium & a hydrogen-powered future.
This insight is my gift to you all.
And, just for good measure, here are two more links which utilize (a) Magnesium nanoparticle catalysis to convert pure CO2 + H20 into methane at ambient temperatures and (b) a self-powered Mg/seawater direct seawater electrolysis system to produce hydrogen.**
(a) https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2021/sc/d1sc01113h
(b) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211285522003731
Best
_____
** Mg is the second most common cation in seawater
Dr Brin in the main post:
By far the most important pages are the first ones, when you hook the reader. And you need a great first paragraph to get them to read the first page.
Kurt Vonnegut advised to show your character wanting something right away, even if it's just a drink of water.
Larry,
Not disagreeing, but one of my favorite authors* intoned, during a writer's workshop where the speaker insisted the character must LIVE from the very first page:
"Marley was dead, to begin with."
I suspect that there are a lot of ways to hook a reader.
Pappenheimer
*Avram Davidson
Pappenheimer:
I suspect that there are a lot of ways to hook a reader.
Almost all rules are made to be broken, but a skillful writer does so for a particular effect, not out of sloppiness.
* * *
Happy New Year to all from Chicago.
(And to all, a good night)
Welcome to 2024, the year of A.I. driven content creation. We're now going to see if we're Pavlovian or Asimovian.
"Marley was dead, to begin with."
Every ‘rule’ in writing is made to be broken! What I teach is “learn the standard techniques to proficiency, and THEN go ahead and CHOOSE what rules to break!” The best example is Picasso, who could do Rembrandt at age 16, then chose from then on not to, anymore.
Locumranch welcome back to California and welcome to the future. Hoping you’ll go back to standing up for nostalgic conservatism – even aristocratism – in ways that argue without assuming we are all a pack of demonic commies. If so, welcome back. (Remember to paraphrase as A QUESTION! Like “Did you mean…?” Instead of declaring a convenient strawman to be knocked down. Strawmen who never even remotely have anything to do with any of us or anything we said.)
As for cold fusion, in fact BOTH SIDES were wrong. As it happens, vibrations in a metal/crystal lattice CAN enhance deuterium nuclei fusing! The result can never/however, be heat/power generation (fusion power). What it CAN do is generate neutrons, which can thereupon stimulate FISSION in normally non-fissile isotopes, like U238. We had a speculative project on this at NASA’s Innovative & Advanced Concepts program – (NIAC).
“ Magnesium nanoparticle catalysis to convert pure CO2 + H20 into methane at ambient temperatures”…
There is a thing called thermodynamics. Nothing is free. What CATALYSTS do is they enable the energy inputs required to approach the theoretical ideal. But you still must put in enough energy to split the CO2 and H2O bond. Anyone who says otherwise is selling snake oil… of which (alas) there are gushers on your side of the spectrum…. Alack.
---
Wishing you all - and all of us -- heightened practically useful sapience and problem solving in the coming roller-coaster year.
Dr Brin:
The best example is Picasso, who could do Rembrandt at age 16, then chose from then on not to, anymore.
I suspect that was Vonnegut's model for his Rabo Karabekian character, who interned with a fictionalized Norman Rockwell-ish artist and could paint realistically every bit as good as his mentor. But he realized that the mentor had epitomized the art of essentially painting photographs, and that if artists were going to be useful in ways that cameras were not, they had to try something else.
Pappenheimer:
the speaker insisted the character must LIVE from the very first page:
"Marley was dead, to begin with."
I know you're being humorous, and so am I, but Marley isn't exactly the character who the reader was supposed to engage with in that story.
Objections and appeals:
Judges expect the basis for the objection to be stated along with it. For example, “Objection - assumes facts not in evidence” is a snarky way of telling opposing counsel they’ve not asked the witness the foundational, factual questions required for the witness to then say whatever it was they said that you objected to. The only time during my former career as a trial lawyer where you could get away with just saying “objection” and having it sustained is when you’ve already done it “right”, been sustained several times, and the judge is starting to get ticked off at the opposing counsel for not following the rules of evidence and/or civil/criminal procedure.
Interlocutory appeals in thre middle of a trial or during the pre-trial motions phase are very uncommon. But these are uncommon times and given the unprecedented nature of the conduct alleged, they present constitutional questions about the power of the President that have never been ruled on by the courts.
And that’s about as neutral as I can be about the pending trials of our former President.
HNY all.
How about that. I ran across a counter-example in an advice book I'm reading that discusses screenplays and how they are different from other literary forms.
"Amos Charles Dundee is a tall, broad-shouldered, raw-boned man in his late thirties. Opinionated, strong-willed, quick-tempered, he is a realist who sees the world exactly as it is and can't get enough of it. An artist, perhaps a sculptor of battle, who knows that for him death is as close as the owl perched upon the thigh of night. It is a very personal world to Amos Charles Dundee and win, lose, or draw he will play it according to his needs and wants. Dundee is a soldier. He gives orders well and takes them badly… A wise man who can be a fool… who will go his own way come hell or high water and so far has yet to look back or regret… Who so far has yet to fail."
-Major Dundee
[Sam Peckinpah, Oscar Saul]
The primary character gets named right up front, but since this screenplay was from the era of Big Westerns it is pretty easy to see what the writer was going for. "Rugged individualist" only just begins to describe Dundee.
Fast forward a few decades, though, and CHINATOWN doesn't even mention the primary character Gittes until the camera pulls back from the photograph being shown to Curly. In fact, Curly gets mentioned first and Gittes' first name (Jake) doesn't get mentioned until page 2 in dialog between Curly and Gittes.
__________
I've seen lots stories where an author provides the full name of the character up front and then again (too often) later as if they need to remind themselves who is being described. Man invented pronouns (thank goodness) to dereference the mess we otherwise make. With proper care in their usage, we can write material about men who do NOT come across like Dundee. Let's face it… most of us aren't like him, so our story writing needs pronouns and other ways to dereference proper names.
Without this trick and others, Peckinpah could not have written in such a short space a raw-boned description of Dundee. Peckinpah broke the 'rule' which is what makes the description work. For those of us who are old enough, Dundee should sound a bit an older male model used in tobacco ads a few decades ago… the kind of guy who can say "f$%k you" with a squint and you know exactly what he means.
Alfred I have broken every single rule that I preach, countless times. But like Picasso, I have proved I can baseline do Rembrandt, or at least Norman Rockwell (LH).
Want to be a narrator yattering poetically at the reader? Great, it can be done very well. And very very badly. And a writer who does journeyman work following my advice will stand a chance of knowing the difference.
By the way, Major Dundee is an excellent flick of its era and type. but don't think that intro is especially helpful and I recall none of it. What I do recall vividly is Richard Harris's shouted denuciations and taunts that made Heston's character's flaws and talents very clear in my mind & memory. In fact it is the best part of the film.
LH,
No disrespect meant re: Marley. Another author (sill living) I like, Steven Brust, likes to experiment with some of his novels. Different forms and styles, even an epistolary novel. Some are excellent, some don't hold my attention - but it's like Kipling said, there are nine-and-sixty ways of composing tribal lays, and every single one of them is right. If you can pull the reader in and get them to the finish, you've won. I still remember wrapping up the last session of a Traveller campaign where the players sat back and sighed at the end and one said "You should write a book about that."
Yeah. It already was a book, I'd just filed the serial numbers off and plugged it into the gaming system. (For anyone interested, "The Witches of Karres", basically is a Traveller campaign, but you should have the 3 witches on different planets in different systems.) And you can psneak* Karres anywhere on the star map for good reason.
Pappenheimer
*that was a typo but a glorious one. I'll leave it in
David,
One of the things I've noticed in every advice book for screenplays is a reminder that almost no one reads them. That intro description for Dundee was in the script, but who actually reads scripts nowadays? It's no wonder you don't remember it for the film... because you remember Heston. It all gets translated, re-written, and then interpreted again my actors. 8)
Anyone trying to write for the masses has to be taking your path toward novels.
Anyone writing for movies and TV has to be thinking about the very tiny audience they have to tempt into producing their stories. What I find neat about some of your advice is that it still applies for scripts… especially the POV comments. I also note that in the POSTMAN screenplay we learn the name of the pack mule before the name of the Postman. Even one of the first bandits gets named before that. 8)
———
Later in the chapter I'm reading the author pointed out that Peckinpah's primary characters were usually flawed men, so that lines up with your perception of Dundee. That you recall it vividly means the incantation survived the production process. 8)
———
I'm converting a story I've had bouncing around my head to a written form. It looks mostly like a graphic novel so my computer spins out panel renders at a modest rate, but I think I can adapt it into screenplay form. We shall see.
Alfred Differ said...
How about that. I ran across a counter-example in an advice book I'm reading that discusses screenplays and how they are different from other literary forms.
Yes, but as you note, screenplays (and stage plays) are different from other literary forms.
It is not uncommon for works intended to be performed to describe characters in some detail. This is due to the nature of the form. Many things cannot reasonably be placed in the (spoken) text, because these are things that will be "shown" by the performance. In a novel, one might describe how a person looks, but in a film or stage play, the character just looks that way in performance.
(Of course, a director may or may not take such a description to heart.)
Also, Larry Hart said...
I know you're being humorous, and so am I, but Marley isn't exactly the character who the reader was supposed to engage with in that story.
For that you need to look to "Jacob Marley's Christmas Carol" a play written by Tom Mula (who performed for many years in the Goodman Theatre's productions of "A Christmas Carol").
Almost nobody reads screenplays... except the writer, trying to get a character's defining points across to the actor who is to portray them.
One thing I've taken from the bible of all writing technique (the Software Design Document Standard ;-) is to identify the audience. A little hard for works of general fiction. Not so for screenplay writers.
@locumranch, cold fusion has gained a bit of disreputable air after the Pons-Fleischman incident. Doesn't mean palladium neutrons aren't worth a closer look, if only to figure out what the underlying cause is, but not many will be willing to risk reputation promoting it. Were you aware that a similar line of research was being conducted at nearby Brigham Young University at about the same time? That was revisiting the possibilities of muon fusion. Scientific American had an article about it.
If I write any stories, my first one will involve a murder mystery in a GULAG camp. There are a lot more elements, but I don't want to give away the twists and turns. Other stories could involve legal issues from certain tech developments, possibly presented as transcripts from hearings.
The last fiction story I spent any time on (many years ago) was set in the late Paleolithic. It explored a tiny tribe's use of pebbles-in-stacks for counting and arithmetic. They came within a hair's breadth of inventing FORTH, but went extinct due to several adversities, lack of language skills being one. Sort of like my writing career :)
@rwc
Thanks so much for the thought on appeals. Well stated. I'm just a bit worried that these 'uncommon times' are allowing endless strands of spaghetti to be thrown on the wall, and the USA must swallow its entire constitutional and legal system each time, waiting for the result, sometimes for months. And the fact that the courts haven't yet explored something doesn't always mean they must. Something not worth doing is not worth doing well.
Since the holiday is over, and this thread already contains some politics...
The following excerpt is not from the article itself, but from a comment underneath. I didn't write it, but I just as well could have, even the somewhat resigned ending. Typos are in the original.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/31/opinion/editorials/biden-trump-voters.html#commentsContainer
I was raised to be the kind of Liberal who thought if you just showed and taught people the truth, they would make political decisions that were in their own best interests. Oh, the rosy optimistic days of sweet youth. Those were the days when we believed that the person with the most votes won the election. But we did put in place checks and balances so Wealthy slave owners could not lose just because they didn't have the votes. Then the choice between Al Gore and George W. and again Donald and Hillary. Too many figured they would rather have a beer with a dry drunk than a nerdy environmentalist. Or they could not explain it they "Just didn't like Hillary". As for the near future, our corrupt Supreme Court will not be reforming itself or going away. If people of color or women or LBGTQ....... are convinced that a protest vote for Nader, Stine, West, or not at all is your best choice. I can't stop you. It will break my heart, but as an old white man, I'll find it easier to pass in a MAGA world than you. Good luck and I hope you decide Demicrate or at least think about what happens if you don't.
Tony,
Almost nobody reads screenplays... except the writer, trying to get a character's defining points across to the actor who is to portray them.
The screenwriting advice books almost always say the writer must not try to do the jobs of others on the team. For example, giving too much direction for where to place the camera (especially type of camera) intrudes on the cinematographer. Giving too much detail on character actions intrudes on the director and actor. It's a fine line, though, because not giving enough detail leaves the story muddy and ambiguous. No producer will assign a director or anyone else to the project if the story doesn't sing.
The best advice I've seen says scripts have to be readable and 'draw the pictures' in a readers mind. Getting into a character's head has to be done through visual, audio, and dialog hints. Novel writers are allowed to do other things on top of all that because their final form is a book instead of a movie.
Another thing they ALL say is critique is required. 8)
———
I never thought I'd like this story writing stuff back when I was young. I enjoyed reading and watching, but never gave a thought to telling them. Strange how things have turned round.
Gregory,
(Of course, a director may or may not take such a description to heart.)
From what I've heard, they aren't supposed to unless there is a lot of pressure. They are supposed to figure out how to take the story as written and get it on film within budget. A lot of excess direction offered by a writer depends on a particular imagining of the set… which the director might ditch due to $$ constraints.
In an older advice book I read they listed the average price per minute (at the time) for Hollywood productions. It was high enough to make my eyes pop wide and then slice out dialog in one toy script of mine. 8)
Alfred Differ:
In an older advice book I read they listed the average price per minute (at the time) for Hollywood productions.
It's hard to remember or even imagine now, but the original Star Wars was made on a shoestring budget. There are some scenes in which it is obvious that a re-take would have been helpful (Han Solo and the "Boring conversation anyway." scene, for one), but was probably not cost-effective to do.
My late father liked to describe the filming of an old western where the hero shot once and three Indians (accidentally) fell off their horses at the same time. Supposedly, the director said to leave that in, and they'd re-title the film "The Magic Bullet". I've never checked to see if that story is apocryphal or not, but it has a ring of truth about it.
The problem with the original cold fusion claim wasn't really the fusion claim… though that got a whole lot of physicists riled up. The actual problem was their piss-poor quality control regarding components in their experimental apparatus (palladium refined in inert atmosphere… containing helium?!) and then their OBVIOUS desire to explain away refutations. They WANTED cold fusion to be true SO much that they didn't accept criticisms as scientists must.
What they showed was an ineptness at doing science. That's what really pissed off the physicists I knew.
———
I was in grad school when the big claim was made. I attended seminars where people actually DID the critiquing right in front of us. It was all a fantastic lesson in how Science actually works.
———
What I'm looking forward to someday is a muon collider. THAT should be fun.
Alfred Differ:
The screenwriting advice books almost always say the writer must not try to do the jobs of others on the team. For example, giving too much direction for where to place the camera
Comic book writing, as opposed to drawing, is a lot like a screenplay. Supposedly, Alan Moore used to give extremely detailed instructions which artist Eddie Campbell would simply ignore and draw the scenes the way he saw fit.
(Of course, that made it the artist's fault, not the writer's, when a panel in From Hell made it to publication with a character's head conspicuously absent. Moore later snarked that he should have included the direction, "[The character's] head at this time remains on top of his body. It does not retract tortoise-like into his chest cavity.")
Larry,
There is a scene in the first Star Wars script where Vader is on the blockade runner ship and an imperial officer first informs him that the plans are not on the main computer. Vader turns to a rebel officer, grabs him by the throat, and lifts him from the floor. I imagine that the stunt scene for that would cost a bit of money, so I wonder if Vader's use of 'The Force' originated as a cost saving measure. 8)
Imagine the actors rehearsing the scene. They'd go through much the same motions miming the choke. Could "The Force" just be a big joke based on low budget rehearsal necessities? People want to know!
INT. REBEL BLOCKADE RUNNER - CORRIDOR
The evil Darth Vader stands amid the broken and twisted bodies
of his foes. He grabs a wounded Rebel Officer by the neck as
an Imperial Officer rushes up to the Dark Lord.
IMPERIAL OFFICER
The Death Star plans are not in the
main computer.
Vader squeezes the neck of the Rebel Officer, who struggles
in vain.
VADER
Where are those transmissions you
intercepted?
Vader lifts the Rebel off his feet by his throat.
VADER
What have you done with those plans?
REBEL OFFICER
We intercepted no transmissions.
Aaah... This is a consular ship.
Were on a diplomatic mission.
VADER
If this is a consular ship... were
is the Ambassador?
The Rebel refuses to speak but eventually cries out as the
Dark Lord begins to squeeze the officer's throat, creating a
gruesome snapping and choking, until the soldier goes limp.
Vader tosses the dead soldier against the wall and turns to
his troops.
VADER
Commander, tear this ship apart until
you've found those plans and bring
me the Ambassador. I want her alive!
The stormtroopers scurry into the subhallways.
Alfred Differ:
I enjoyed reading and watching [stories] , but never gave a thought to telling them.
Watching the play Deathtrap at 16 years old was an epiphany for me. I sat there thinking, "I could never write something as tight as this, so it's worth the money to pay someone who can."
I've also always had a fondness for songwriters who know how to tell stories in their works. Harry Chapin died way too soon.
Alfred Differ:
Imagine the actors rehearsing the scene. They'd go through much the same motions miming the choke.
I saw Star Wars in theaters 9 times that first summer it came out, and therefore noticed some details they'd probably rather the viewer didn't catch onto. Like the fact that the close up of the Jawas' crawler with the huge tire treads was only the treads. They simply never panned up any higher.
Or the scene after the Sandpeople attack and 3PO's torso had been separated from his lower body. Ben and Luke lift him up while his head is moving, so the actor playing 3PO is clearly involved. But you never see far enough down to see what should have been missing from the body. The moving line which separates the split screen between one scene and the next conveniently moves up along with 3PO's waistline.
@larry it can be as entertaining to pick up on how a magician do their tricks as the tricks themselves.
Interesting distinction...
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/01/opinion/israel-war-empathy-pain.html
...
Although they’re often used interchangeably, empathy and compassion aren’t the same. Empathy absorbs others’ emotions as your own: “I’m hurting for you.” Compassion focuses your action on their emotions: “I see that you’re hurting, and I’m here for you.”
...
Another difference is that empathy makes us ache. Neuroscientists can see it in brain scans. Dr. Klimecki, Dr. Singer and their colleagues trained people to empathize by trying to feel other people’s pain. When the participants saw someone suffering, it activated a neural network that would light up if they themselves were in pain. It hurt. And when people can’t help, they escape the pain by withdrawing.
To combat this, the Klimecki and Singer team taught their participants to respond with compassion rather than empathy — focusing not on sharing others’ pain but on noticing their feelings and offering comfort. A different neural network lit up, one associated with affiliation and social connection. This is why a growing body of evidence suggests that compassion is healthier for you and kinder to others than empathy: When you see others in pain, instead of causing you to get overloaded and retreat, compassion motivates you to reach out and help.
...
Larry,
They simply never panned up any higher.
I learned that from theater. The sets only had to suggest the scenes much of the time. If the action never went there, no sense spending money on it. If the money was in short supply, no sense taking the action there. 8)
It's common practice to speed up 3-D renders for a 2-D screen by hiding geometry/meshes that aren't in view. Works pretty well unless those surfaces are very reflective or otherwise alter light paths. In movie project SFX work render times cost $$, so meeting the budget can depend a lot on people knowing what not to put on a scene just off camera.
Pritzker's NWU Commencement speech, that talks about idiocy and empathy. This is just a clip, the full speech also covers Star Wars and DT.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uFwyPP5GOQ
Empathy is sensitivity to the feelings of others and it can be valuable to a carnivore hunting prey.
Add in SATIATION (and not all creatures or humans are satiable) and movement up Maslowe's hierarchy of needs and you MIGHT get SYMPATHY... if you were raised in a culture that promotes the spreading of wider horizons of inclusion.
See http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2015/07/altruistic-horizons-our-tribal-natures.html "Altruistic Horizons: Our tribal natures, the 'fear effect' vs. inclusion... and the end of ideologies."
AFter sympathy comes COMPASSION.
"people knowing what not to put on a scene just off camera."
Which is why in the Shakespearean era you often have some guy running up and saying, "Sire, I have just come from the battle!"
Pappenheimer
Not paying as much attention to what's not on screen was the reason I heard, there was no wide screen version of ST TNG, they didn't see the point, at the time, to shoot "Wide screen clean".
Years ago, Asimov's published an unshot screenplay for "I. Robot". Not filmed because it was written by Harlan Ellison, who rubbed a studio exec the wrong way, possibly something of interest for a streaming service?
Alfred Differ said...
From what I've heard, they aren't supposed to unless there is a lot of pressure. They are supposed to figure out how to take the story as written and get it on film within budget. A lot of excess direction offered by a writer depends on a particular imagining of the set… which the director might ditch due to $$ constraints.
Not just this. Directions and descriptions might be changed because the director has a different idea, or a different actor is hired, or many other things.
I think it is probably best to think of screenplays (and stage plays) as "suggestions". What ends up on the screen (and how it is presented there) may or may not match with what is on paper. Some films may follow the screenplay closely, but others may be wildly different - possibly even changing the story - depending on the actors, director, cinematographer, producer(s), editors, and so on.
Writing, of a variety of types, is an important skill. Something Claudine Gay is learning the hard way.
scidata:
This is just a clip, the full speech also covers Star Wars and DT.
The full speech is too good to miss. Link below. And for those who don't know, that's Illinois Governor JB Pritzker making the speech at Illinois's Northwestern University.
Parents and maturing children of parents need to hear the part between about 5 and 9 minutes in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihpF0Z71CGE
For anyone trying to improve their writing (fiction) I have a couple recommendations for resources. One of the most amazing things I have come across in the past few years is a series of books for writers that the authors call “thesauruses” - although the name isn’t quite right. What they are is collections of some impressive research on subjects that writers often need help with at the nitty-gritty, in the trenches level, organized like encyclopedia entries.
The first of these I came across is called, “The Emotion Thesaurus,” by Angela Ackerman and Becca Puglisi. It begins with a few dozen pages explaining how to use the entries, which goes into a lot of good story theory. The entries list an emotion, then go into details of how it affects people physiologically and mentally, so you have an idea of what kinds of things you can show your character’s feelings without telling directly. Entries include Acute or Long-Term Responses, Signs this Emotion is Being Suppressed, May Escalate to …
One of the most useful is “The Emotional Wound Thesaurus” which helps you figure out backstory for your characters. I’ve read reviews of this one that claimed that reading it is therapeutic as well. For planning characters, they have a “Positive Traits Thesaurus” and a “Negative Traits Thesaurus” and for help with plotting and theme, a “Conflict Thesaurus.” They even have a couple for setting: the “Urban Settings Thesaurus” and “Rural Settings Thesaurus.” Alas, nothing specific to sci fi, though.
They have a website where they have more “thesauruses” that haven’t been published but you can get access to for a fee, as well as many other resources for writers. I haven’t subscribed, so I can’t say how good a deal it might be, but even without subscribing their site is worth visiting.
Happy scribbling to all those who scribble,
Paul SB
https://writershelpingwriters.net
https://www.amazon.com/Emotion-Thesaurus-Writers-Character-Expression/dp/0999296345/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2KDRLI1F69L97&keywords=the+emotion+thesaurus+by+angela+ackerman+and+becca+puglisi&qid=1704307076&sprefix=the+emotion+thesaurus%2Caps%2C158&sr=8-1
Gregory,
Not just this.
Agreed. In another chapter in one book I'm reading, the author showed how he leads a class in an exercise in building characters. Everyone is supposed to collaborate. They had settled on 'a woman from Boston' when he asked how old she was. They mostly wanted to pick early 20's, but he discouraged that by giving a list of bankable leading ladies at the time… who were mostly in their early 30's. He drove the point by reminding them they are supposed to be able to sell their script. So… anyone pondering this might wind up with an unintended "co-author" who fixes things after someone buys the script. 8)
If I recall right, CASABLANCA was written just before US entry into WWII. The script for the movie got re-written a bit giving it a wonderful propaganda twist.
…as "suggestions"
That's what I thought at first, but I've come around on it. Once someone buys the script, it's really theirs to do with as they please. Nowadays I think of them as "strong suggestions" AND "I already have my money so do whatever you want." It all comes down to whether the original author wants their name listed in the credits later. 8)
No matter what, though, I think everyone should try their hand at writing stories. The effort changes how one sees the world.
Darrell E,
Something Claudine Gay is learning the hard way.
…and her defenders. With modern AI tools, we are going to spot these cases easily in the future.
The more things change...
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/02/opinion/haley-civil-war-slavery.html
Indeed, slaveholders and their defenders lashed out at anyone who even suggested that slavery was a bad thing. As Abraham Lincoln said in his Cooper Union address, the slave interest in effect demanded that Northerners “cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right.”
Alfred,
IIRC, if Harlan Ellison thought the Powers That Be had messed his scripts up too badly, he would insist that he listed on the credits as "Cordwainer Bird" to let others in the industry know that the movie or TV series would be a real turkey
Pappenheimer
In Prime's "The Center Seat: 55 Years of Star Trek", the script wars between Ellison, Roddenberry, Fontana, and others are legendary. No wonder Asimov gave Star Trek a wide berth.
Claudine Gay had to resign for three excellent PR reasons. First, she flubbed her testimony, and legalesed herself into sounding soft on genocide. Second, the plagiarism. That's a bad look. And then there's the superficial reason: her curious choices in hairstyle and eyewear.
Paul SB those “thesaurus’ links are interesting!
All of January, the UPLIFT STORM TRILOGY will be on e-book sale for $3.99. Alas apparently not on Kobo or Barnes & Noble. But a crazy good deal on Amazon. And adventure? With some science and great alien races? I got em here for you! Oh... what savings!
https://www.amazon.com/Uplift-Storm-Trilogy-Brightness-Infinitys-ebook/dp/B091YFWFZK
Hi Dr Brin
Amazon says - not currently available for purchase
duncan.... may just be for N America, sorry.
I suppose there does need to be some advantages to living in the USA
And the fact that the courts haven't yet explored something doesn't always mean they must. Something not worth doing is not worth doing well.
Scidata,
Part of the reason is Donald Trump was President, which is a co-equal branch of government. Many of the lower courts don't feel like they have the authority to bind the executive branch and thus will kick issues to the Supreme Court.
Many of the things are issues no one has precedent for, even in legal treatises (which are mere opinions about jurisprudence by a recognized legal scholar. Basically , when a court confronts a novel problem with little to no precedent, they'll cite a treatise.) Lawyers get drilled into their brain during law school to have authority for every argument they make.
John Viril:
Part of the reason is Donald Trump was President, which is a co-equal branch of government. Many of the lower courts don't feel like they have the authority to bind the executive branch and thus will kick issues to the Supreme Court.
While this is certainly true, there is also a darker side to why attempting to apply consequences to Donald Trump in particular is a hot potato.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/04/opinion/the-case-for-disqualifying-trump-is-strong.html
...
Since the rise of Trump, he and his movement have transgressed constitutional, legal and moral boundaries at will and then, when Americans attempt to impose consequences for those transgressions, Trump’s defenders and critics alike caution that the consequences will be “dangerous” or “destabilizing.”
There is already a “surge in violent threats” against the justices of the Colorado Supreme Court. The Yale Law School professor Samuel Moyn has argued that “rejecting Mr. Trump’s candidacy could well invite a repeat of the kind of violence that led to the prohibition on insurrectionists in public life in the first place.” Ian Bassin, a Protect Democracy co-founder, has suggested — and I agree — that even legal analysis of the 14th Amendment “is being colored by the analyst’s fear of how Trump and his supporters would react” to an adverse ruling.
...
...or as I posted last time, which might have been missed during the holidays:
"Let him have it. It's not wise to upset a Republican."
"But sir, no one worries about upsetting a Democrat."
"That's because Democrats don't pull people's arms out of their sockets when they lose. Republicans have been known to do that."
"I see your point, sir. I suggest a new strategy, R2. Let the Republican win."
The end of self-evident truth is the end of the Republic.
Well, Dr. Brin, I will have to take advantage of that deal for Uplift. I was never one of your super fans, but I knew who u were when I saw u at the TusCON sci Fi conference bc I had read Startide Rising, your finish to the Foundation series, and oddly enough "Heart of the Comet," which u co-wrote with Gregory Benford. For some reason I could never put my finger on, I really liked that book and have read it multiple times.
Was interested when u linked to video of Jerry Pournelle's advice about writing (channeling Robert Heinlein), bc Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle were the first sci fi writers i ever read.
After getting hooked on speculative fiction by Tolkien at 12, I ran across N &P's Inferno when I was around 13 (which was mind-blowing for a catholic school kid who used to b an altar boy and has an aunt who is a nun). Even then, I liked to cause trouble in religion class (which got worse when I went to a Jesuit HS. Say what u will about Jesuits, but BOY do they like to question stuff. I'm hardly a faithful Catholic as an adult, but I do respect how Jesuits encouraged their students to question things).
Some of my early sci-fi favorites were Lucifer's Hammer (the first End of the World novel I ever read) and The Mote in God's Eye, which i think still holds up as a great first contact novel. I like how biologically alien the moties are.
Hell, I read N&P before getting to Foundation, Dune, and Starship Troopers when I was 15.
Though I guess my sci Fi fandom goes back farther to when I started watching Star Trek reruns around 10. (I wont claim "Lost in Space" as sci Fi, its more an adventure story aimed at boys. I cringe to remember how much I liked lost in space).
@scidata,
"With thunderous applause"
John Viril:
I wont claim "Lost in Space" as sci Fi, its more an adventure story aimed at boys.
That's as good as any description for Star Wars as well.
LH, but weirdly enough, I think it might be better if the courts stop him. I think him losing an election might be worse in terms of tearing us apart.
Oh one hand, Jan 6 was a coup attempt run by The Cowardly Lion. In some ways, we're lucky that Trump has turned out to be such a chicken shit.
The sort of vilification punditry that has gone into overdrive since Trump became a political figure scares me, bc I fear politicians passing destructive legislation and creating a political culture designed to stop him.
Once in place, a Hitler wanna-be could start mouthing DNC platitudes in order to get in position to abuse those statutes and political infrastructure to grab too much power. (Consider how Napoleon subverted the French Revolution).
As it is, The Patriot Act was enough of a constitutional disaster. I think, in many ways, the patriot act has contributed to the catastrophic breakdown of the 4th and 5th amendments (I would recommend u google Professor James Duane who gives a wonderful 2 part lecture on this subject).
A political culture designed to stop Trump can become even worse. LH, your DNC=good and RNC=bad mindset is very dangerous, bc proto dictators can clothe themselves in DNC attire to seize power or get enticed by the opportunity to seize power (I think Napoleon was more the latter case. Young Napoleon seemed to buy into democratic ideals, but couldn't resist power once he got in position to exercise it).
Giving more power to politicians is always a perilous endeavor bc it's unlikely you'll ever be able to claw back that authority once the reason to grant that power has passed.
John Viril:
LH, your DNC=good and RNC=bad mindset is very dangerous,
I don't need nor claim to make saints out of the Democratic Party. At this point in history, it is enough that they are the enemy of the enemy of democracy.
Your own insistence on referring to the parties by their national committee names is confusing and somewhat misleading. Trump has turned the Republican Party into something essentially separate from what one thinks of as the RNC.
proto dictators can clothe themselves in DNC attire to seize power or get enticed by the opportunity to seize power
So you think Democratic Party ideals are so alluring and popular that they're in danger of being hijacked by a demagogue? While right-wing rhetoric is being used for that very purpose before our eyes, and that doesn't worry you at all? While poll after poll shows Democrats losing support from blacks, Hispanics, LGBTQ people, college age voters, and Muslims (with their "Abandon Biden" movement designed to elect Trump), who exactly are this mythical potential liberal demagogue supposed to appeal to?
Giving more power to politicians is always a perilous endeavor bc it's unlikely you'll ever be able to claw back that authority once the reason to grant that power has passed.
Agreed, but I'm awfully confused at the fact that you perceive this a present danger from the left when it is actually happening (, Reg!) from the right in real time. An ex-president who already showed us his authoritarian tendencies ("Article Two says I can do whatever I want") and who may be re-elected soon asserts that he is above the law, and you are afraid of what might happen if we don't accept that?
That's as good as any description for Star Wars as well.
Well, to give Star Wars its due, it showed how to deliver special effects that made high-level sci-fi stories freak'n possible. Some would argue 2001 already had done that, but Star Wars was such a cultural phenomenon it produced a spate of great sci Fi in a way 2001 never did.
I mean, u think Blade Runner ever gets made without Star Wars?
In terms of special effects, Star Wars was such a leap that sci forever escaped monster camp. Consider that "Logan's Run" won the special effects Oscar the year before Star Wars won.
I recently saw another Star Wars contemporary called Damnation Alley starring Jan Michael Vincent, adapted from a Roger Zelazney novel. That thing looks like crap compared to SWyet was released in 1977 by the same studio.
They stole budget from Damnation Alley to finish Star Wars post-production, bc apparently 20th Century Fox realized Star Wars was the better bet after seeing the raw footage. Originally, they viewed Damnation Alley as the big film over Star Wars (of the two sci fi films they planned to release in '77).
Without Star Wars, we don't get Battlestar Galactica (which only became great on the reboot), Blade Runner, or Star Trek on the big screen.
John Viril:
Well, to give Star Wars its due, it showed how to deliver special effects that made high-level sci-fi stories freak'n possible.
That's true. And I wasn't dissing Star Wars per se--I was its biggest fan back in '77--I was just noting that despite its setting and weaponry, it doesn't really qualify as science fiction. It's more of a cowboy or pirate movie in sci-fi trappings.
But you make a good point too, that the very creation of Star Wars itself could be construed as science fiction in a way that the movie itself is not.
LH,
Technically, it's Kurosawa's Hidden Fortress with a few blasters and starships tossed in. Didn't mean SW wasn't a groundbreaker...
Still waiting for better Zelazny novels to hit the screen - there have been noises about the Amber Chronicles becoming a series (only way to do that), and I think Lord of Light might make a great Bollywood/Hollywood movie.
Pappenheimer
Dr. Brin,
I'm not sure if a seasoned writer like you would need some of them, but they can be great for generating ideas. The emotions one would probably be useful for just about anyone who writes fiction.
Paul SB
Pappehneimer:
Didn't mean SW wasn't a groundbreaker...
Star Wars is sort of like The Wizard of Oz or Mary Poppins were in their day. The movie itself is a technological wonder, even if the content isn't really sci-fi.
So you think Democratic Party ideals are so alluring and popular that they're in danger of being hijacked by a demagogue?
Oh, Donald Trump appalls me. I found it disgusting how he used WWE marketing tactics in politics and showed it worked. That alone has devastating effects that will be with us for generations to come.
I must confess to some snobbery when it comes to professional wrestling. It's "lowbrow" entertainment that just doesn't appeal to me. Now it rules our freak'n politics.
It makes me nauseous.
I have a sort of caution about state power that makes me have some really strong conservative and libertarian streaks in my thinking. However, I'm no "believer" in any political party. In fact, I tend to think power hungry pieces of crap will spout whatever rhetoric that will enable their quest for power. (Think Talleyrand during the French Revolution).
Trump in no way is a Republican or conservative loyalist, but their rhetoric just happened to be convenient vehicles for his goals.
However, I do roll my eyes whenever the DNC starts trying to act like they're ardent defenders of democracy, while trying to embed systemic DNC advantages into the For the People Act.
JV,
RE: US antidemocracy
You're definitely bothsidesing it. The DNC regularly disappoints me, but not because it's gearing up to disenfranchise voters, destroy social safety nets, and acquiesce to putting a corrupt, incompetent, authoritarian racist back in the White House. The only person the GQP can use to mirror the threat of another Trump term (absit omen) is Barack Obama, who left office on schedule and is not angling for power, because he is not constitutionally allowed to assume office - and knows this, as he is a constitutional scholar.
By the way, refresh my memory - which party introduced the Patriot Act? Is it the ACLU or the Federalist Society that opposes it?
Pappenheimer
John Viril:
However, I do roll my eyes whenever the DNC starts trying to act like they're ardent defenders of democracy, while trying to embed systemic DNC advantages into the For the People Act.
Where you see "embed systemic DNC advantages," I see "eliminate systemic Republican advantages". For example, I would support eliminating obstacles from citizens voting, even if that led to Republican victories. I don't think of that as a partisan issue, even if it currently favors one party. Meaning, I don't support the concept because it favors Democrats. Rather I support the Democrats because they favor the concept.
If Republicans would actually champion democracy and equality before the law, I would treat them as the political opposition rather than as enemies of all things American. But from what I can see, today's Republicans demand that elections be rigged in their favor, and that not doing so constitutes some sort of partisan attack against them.
Oh, Donald Trump appalls me. I found it disgusting how he used WWE marketing tactics in politics and showed it worked. That alone has devastating effects that will be with us for generations to come.
And yet you seem more worried about attempts to hold him accountable for his crimes than you are about his potential re-election.
Look, none of our civil mechanisms are self-enforcing. Checks and balances against one branch of government must be carried out by others. Until and unless God Himself steps in, it's really turtles all the way down. So if the presidency is hijacked or abused, the only remedy is counterbalancing power by other branches. I'm uncomfortable with your idea that that counterbalancing power needs to be avoided because it in turn could be abused in the future. At some point, the need to put out a fire supersedes the potential of water damage from the hoses.
By the way, refresh my memory - which party introduced the Patriot Act? Is it the ACLU or the Federalist Society that opposes it?
I'm well aware that the Patriot Act was the product of RW think tanks who prepared it long before the occasion came to pass it. If u want, I'll go on and on about what an awful President GW Bush was.
In many ways, I think Osama bin Ladin won. He got us to transmorgrify ourselves into something almost unrecognizable. Think about all the economic growth that got squandered in two forever wars.
We should have gone into Afghanistan, killed all the Al qaida we could find, and send assassins after leadership we failed to get. Then get out.
Nation building is going to be almost impossible if you can't control outside supply lines.
I'm also well aware that Obama merely validated a large portion of it while pretending to fix it.
An outline for ‘ILL Wind Rising’:
A cashiered meteorology professor seeds the clouds around the campus, and sends a small tornado into the Dean’s office. It breaks the windows, and the professor goes on the lam in a little boat in the Pacific.
He is eventually located by tracking his Premium Weather Channel account, but before he can be apprehended, he is killed in a typhoon.
John Viril:
If u want, I'll go on and on about what an awful President GW Bush was.
I'd rather that in recognizing how consequentially bad our last two Republican presidents were, you'd be more ok with our attempts to reverse that damage before it's too late and less worried about the fact that a Democrat might some day be worse.
In many ways, I think Osama bin Ladin won. He got us to transmorgrify ourselves into something almost unrecognizable. Think about all the economic growth that got squandered in two forever wars.
On that, we are very much in agreement. What I would have liked us to do in the wake of 9/11 is to dust ourselves off, bury our dead, and then go about our business as if for all their ferociousness, the attacks were of no consequence. Oh, and incidentally, send in a special forces team to whack Bin Laden like a fly.
But the Republican leadership seemed to go with an Orwellian "Cowardice is Bravery" instead. And you have a point that most congressional Democrats went along because they thought anything else was political suicide. But they were not the ones leading the charge, and I'll bet most regret their votes in hindsight. Not so Republicans who tend to double and triple down on their worst mistakes.
I'm also well aware that Obama merely validated a large portion of it while pretending to fix it.
Remember though that except for brief period between Al Franken's late swearing in and Ted Kennedy's death, Senate Republicans had the votes they needed to essentially veto any Democratic initiative via the filibuster. And Mitch McConnell had outright stated his goal to use obstructionism to make Obama a one-term president. The Democrats in general and President Obama in particular didn't have quite the power to move mountains that you assume. They always had to negotiate with intransigent Republicans, even just to keep the lights on.
Alan Brooks:
An outline for ‘ILL Wind Rising’:
To go along with that title, the campus should be the University of Illinois.
but before he can be apprehended, he is killed in a typhoon.
Heh. Too deus ex machina, though. Unless the storm he creates somehow sets off the one that kills him.
Yeah...bitten by the old Butterfly Effect. :)
JV admits that W Bush was a bad president.
Well, his father was *worse*, just not as dumb. Bush Sr. deserves nothing but disdain for screwing over Iraq resistance.
Reagan was even worse than Bush Sr. He cheated, aided our enemies (Iran Contra ring a bell?) and destroyed the American middle class. He was evil and his wife (his biggest influence) was worse.
The GOP has been rotten to the core ever since the Dixiecrats came to the party in the wake of civil rights legislation in the 60s. The rot left the Democrats and moved to the party where they could fully embrace hate and corruption.
There may be a sane conservatism in America, but there hasn't been one in my middle-aged life.
Its racism, corruption, and envy all the way down in the GOP.
For example, I would support eliminating obstacles from citizens voting, even if that led to Republican victories
LH,
The issue I had with the For the People Act was it's insistence on: 1) third parties being able to collect and deliver an unlimited number of ballots, and 2) ubiquitously available mail in ballots.
Combine these two features and u create a brand new canvassing game where u send people door to door to persuade voters, If the person thinks the "right" way, u produce a ballot and tell them "u can vote right now." Then have the person designate the canvasser as their delivery agent.
So, why is this bad? First, it pretty much makes the traditional prohibition on canvassing within so many meters of a polling place a complete joke. U enable partisan canvassers to directly influence voters just before voting.
Second, you'll create some really precise analytics that correlate campaign funds spent with actual votes received. I'm no expert in political campaigns by any means, but it seems to me one saving grace of our system is that it's hard to directly know how campaign funds spent translates to votes. When you don't know exactly what the voter will do when they have an actual ballot, it really inhibits the ability to know how money translates into votes for a political campaign. Thus, fund raising will become an even more reliable predictor of elections than it is today.
Third, Ok Larry, if direct canvassing takes on a greater importance in election, what effect does that have?
Go take a look at an election map. Where do RNC and DNC voters live? DNC voters cluster in dense urban centers.
Gee, what might the ROI be for a canvasser going into a NYC high rise vs. trying to canvass a Wisconsin dairy farm community? Given the logistics of voter residency, the DNC will embed a massive ROI advantage for their canvassers vs. their RNC counterparts into voting legislation.
You think those living patterns are going to change anytime soon? Do you really believe the drafters of this legislation don't see this? Essentially, they're creating a world where these rules will produce increased efficiency for DNC campaign dollars vs RNC campaign dollars---and that efficiency gap is likely to last longer than a generation.
If making voting response universally greater across the board without partisan bias, I'd be for it, Our stability depends on accurately identifying and mollifying unhappy people bf things get so bad they are compelled to revolt. But this bill looks specifically designed to create a partisan ROI advantage that favors the DNC.
Exactly, Illinois. The professor had unknowingly purchased a house built on Gacy’s property.
Alan,
Speaking as an old weatherguy, if your professor was able to aim a tornado that effectively, the number of 3LAs headhunting him with job offers would be "all of them."
Pappenheimer
JV,
I see universal mail in balloting as a way of correcting for the GQP's egregious assault on poor urban folks* voting - there are already restrictions on the number of drop boxes per county in TX, for instance, that are an evil joke. Forcing the GQP to have to hustle for the votes of people they hate rather than ignoring them might do some ways towards ameliorating its political stances on a host of issues. As a rule politics aside, I am in favor of making it EASIER for all of-age citizens to vote. I'd extend that not only to people who have served time for felonies in the South but, like Australia, to prison inmates. The deck has been stacked in this country for way too long.
Pappenheimer
* i.e. what Larry Niven has called "people of the Black persuasion".
It was an F-1, merely knocked out the windows.
John,
Gee, what might the ROI be for a canvasser going into a NYC high rise vs. trying to canvass a Wisconsin dairy farm community?
True, but that just means the current GOP has a problem in cities and has to come up with a more expensive (possibly) solution for driving the vote in rural areas.
I get your POV, but I think you are missing something crucial. Those canvassers going into a high rise are GETTING PEOPLE TO VOTE. I don't mean to shout, but that's a huge frickin' deal. Arguing that methods that permit this shouldn't be tolerating is effectively saying we have to limit ourselves in how we move our neighbors to do their civic duty. Do you REALLY want to defend that position?
———
I like the universal mail-in ballots.
I'd prefer on-line ballots with sufficient crypto-security, but that requires a lot more IT savvy from election officials than I think exists at the moment.
I LIKE having EVERYONE vote and KNOW their vote made it into the count.
Hmm. I'm shouting again. I'll stop here with a simple summary.
The Franchise Matters.
It's worth a shooting war to preserve and extend.
Larry,
So you think Democratic Party ideals are so alluring and popular that they're in danger of being hijacked by a demagogue?
I do.
There is no immediate danger, so I'm willing to keep my attention on Trump.
However, there are Democrats who I think would qualify at least partially. None are as bad as Trump right now, but some of their supporters are upset enough they'd support a demagogue. I ally with Progressives for now, but I'm a wary optimist with respect to them.
John Virgil wrote:
The issue I had with the For the People Act was it's insistence on: 1) third parties being able to collect and deliver an unlimited number of ballots, and 2) ubiquitously available mail in ballots.
Combine these two features and u create a brand new canvassing game where u send people door to door to persuade voters, If the person thinks the "right" way, u produce a ballot and tell them "u can vote right now." Then have the person designate the canvasser as their delivery agent.
Your description of this didn't make sense to me, so I went to actually look at the text. It does say that there isn't a limit on the number of ballots that a specific individual can be designated to deliver (as long as they aren't compensated on that basis). It also says that if an individual is eligible to vote in a state, additional restrictions can't be applied on their right to vote by mail.
However I am not seeing anything in there that says that the person canvassing would have ballots to produce to voters? Where did you find that?
Presumably if someone wants to vote by mail they would either need to register for mail voting (unless you are in a state that sends ballots out automatically) and have their ballot handy, having not already voted and wanting the person to deliver it for them. They also have to get the person to open the door in the first place, and be willing to listen to them, be willing to designate them to deliver the ballot, and they won't actually know how the person voted unless the person shows them the ballot (since they can seal it before giving it to the person).
I can see that because Democrats tend to live in denser areas that this might give some advantage to Democrats canvassing, but I also kind of wonder if people in less dense areas are more likely to open the door to strangers and actually listen to their spiel about politics. There are also some dense areas that may be more conservative leaning (senior centers and nursing homes) that would also benefit from this. Also, more universal mail balloting could also benefit rural voters that may live far from a polling place.
I don't consider it automatically partisan for a bill to include things that might result in more votes for one party that the other- not if the goal is to make it easier for eligible people to vote. God knows we've had a lot of more blatantly partisan attempts to make it harder for eligible people to vote.
I'm curious though what you think the cap should be on the number of ballots a person can be designated to deliver? What would make it less partisan while still allowing for people to organize to help out people who for some reason can't easily mail their ballots?
I'm rather spoiled where I live as the drop box for ballots is only a 5 minute drive away, but in a lot of places (generally right leaning) they've gone out of their way to make using drop boxes as difficult as possible. Urban areas are also far more likely to have issues with long lines for voting, so that is already a built in advantage to the right that more mail voting access would help alleviate.
JV your SF fandom journey parallels many of ours.
“The sort of vilification punditry that has gone into overdrive since Trump became a political figure scares me, bc I fear politicians passing destructive legislation and creating a political culture designed to stop him.”
Kinda weird statement. A FAR better model is mine: that there have been EIGHT recurring efforts by America’s dark, medieval -nostalgist side to rebel against and destroy the modernist/enlightenment/scientifically-progressive side that made us distinct from 6000 years dominated by medieval -nostalgist regimes and rule by inheritance brats.
As for the rest of JV’s attempts to disparage the democrats as equally demagogic and a dangerous as the rabid-frothing insanity and treason that have taken over the US right, I can only repeat – WANNA BET? Choose ANY sub topic! And I can prove that the dems, while flawed, are orders of magnitude closer to being reasonably sincere politicians, seeking to negotiate our way forward through a hazardous and every changing world.
There are ZERO levels or ways in which your assertions of equivalence hold up, and you can wager and take my house, if you can prove otherwise.
“It makes me nauseous.” Then stop with the desperate wriggling that there’s ‘equivalence.’
“However, I do roll my eyes whenever the DNC starts trying to act like they're ardent defenders of democracy, while trying to embed systemic DNC advantages into the For the People Act.”
Bull bull bull bull… The GOP already has an inherently gerrymandered Senate. They have cheat gerrymandered to get the House, which should be elected by totally equal enfranchisement. There is no comparison.
“We should have gone into Afghanistan, killed all the Al qaida we could find, and send assassins after leadership we failed to get. Then get out.”
I sort of agree. But I have mixed feelings about this. 5 million women and girls got educations. That will simmer and someday boil.
“I mean, u think Blade Runner ever gets made without Star Wars?”
Yes of course I do. There were trends all over and Lucas just happened to be ready. Remember Close Encounters?
Matthew.. (*choke, sputter*) is right. Bush senior was by far the worst president of the 20th century. I hope he is right now in gruesome conditions.
I am fine with emphasizing in-person voting… if election day is a national holiday for anyone who has an “I voted” receipt.
John Viril:
Go take a look at an election map. Where do RNC and DNC voters live? DNC voters cluster in dense urban centers.
Which means that no matter how many of them vote, they still only win something like 15 states. Those rural farm voters who are so sparsely situated that it's hard to canvass them get to win 35 states. 30% of the population get 70% of the Senators and corresponding electoral votes. That doesn't change if more and even more Democrats vote in those same states.
And you think the most clear and present danger to democracy at the moment is a fanciful Rube Goldberg scenario that will eventually make it easier for Democrats to get out the vote door to door? Door to door in poor slum neighborhoods? While Republicans are forced to rely on Twitter and FOX News and ubiquitous right-wing AM radio?
John Virgil:
I ally with Progressives for now,
You sure had me fooled.
Dr Brin:
I am fine with emphasizing in-person voting… if election day is a national holiday for anyone who has an “I voted” receipt.
I like mail=in and early voting because it minimizes the effect of bad weather on election day. Also because it makes voter intimidation and long lines at polling places less of a problem.
GETTING PEOPLE TO VOTE. I don't mean to shout, but that's a huge frickin' deal.
Well, one of the reasons I hold my POV is it's a really easy problem to fix. Took me roughly 20 seconds to come up with it.
Basically, all you do is: 1) limit vote collection to no more than 10 ballots or so. That way, you'd provide access to homebound voters, while making it logistically impractical to pursue the canvassing strategy I point out above.
Second, you make it a relatively minor misdemeanor to exceed this limit, but it has a real kicker for a politically ambitious person: it comes with a 10 year ban for running for political office, working for a politician, or working in any government job. Violating it would pretty much kill any political aspirations for the sort of people likely to work as a canvasser
It's not just that it favors the DNC, remember I"m not exactly an RNC loyalist either. The problem is it puts voters in direct contact with a partisan persuader as they vote.
Having been trained to persuade, I worry about a voting process that turns into a game of the hard sell. Many states create cooling-off periods for door to door sales just for this reason. I think the whole structure cheapens our voting process.
I am no means any kind of legislative genius. I've been to law school, so I possess some competence, but I don't craft legislation every day. If I see it, hell should be bloody obvious to a remotely competent legislative drafter. So why propose legislation with such an obvious flaw, and such an ez fix?
In a more harmonious political environment, you could view it as a bargaining construct that the drafter is prepared to surrender in trade for a hard to get statute or adjustment they want.
But, in the poisonous political atmosphere of today it makes me think they're trying to grab a backdoor distortion to something that could be a good law.
Hi JV
I'm in NZ - we don't have your people collecting votes - but we do have polling places open for a week before the election and enough polling places that a five minute wait is about the max
I really don't see how collecting ballots could be any form of "Hard Sell" - the collector CANNOT be carrying blank ballots - THAT would be a disaster
So the ballots must have arrived by post and be waiting
If somebody started a hard sell and the person had not already filled in his ballot that would encourage most people to vote for the other guy
John,
Your 20 second solution strikes me as strongly unethical. I'm not saying you are, though. I'm inviting you to give it more thought and ask yourself why a classical liberal (who is currently disgusted by some of the selfish bastards I've met among the local libertarians) is bothered enough to say so.
Ask yourself WHY government should have any power to limit vote collection to 10 or any other number. There are legit concerns with vote collection as a practice, but one should recall that ALL vote collection methods lead to large numbers being collected by someone somewhere. So why one method over another? Try that on for size and you might see why I think a number limit is unethical.
Seriously. If I am a member of an extended family/ tribe/ religious group/ etc, who are you to tell me I can't persuade them I'm a man of integrity who will deliver their ballots properly? Who are you to make this decision for them? [I can think of a dozen other examples if I try.]
See the ethics problem yet?
———
Having been trained to persuade, I worry about a voting process that turns into a game of the hard sell.
Come now. How is this any different from the training politicians acquire? Meet a few of them and you'll see a common trait. They could charm a snake out of its skin before shedding time and sell air conditioners to penguins in the winter. ALL of us are surrounded by people who make political pitches for this or that cause or person. We are ALL political animals and you can't reasonably expect to protect people from anything short of actual cheating… which persuasion is NOT.
You CAN reasonably try to protect them from consequences of NOT being persuaded much like we are supposed to do when employers exercise just a bit too much authority over employees who are dependent on the next paycheck. Firing someone for not voting correctly (or submitting to sexual advances) IS a form of cheating, but we can't reasonably act just because someone has the skill and power to do any of that. It is the act that should be criminalized and not the possibility.
———
But, in the poisonous political atmosphere of today it makes me think they're trying to grab a backdoor distortion to something that could be a good law.
Backdoor distortions are already in place. Politicians in an earlier era colluded to lock out third parties. Various groups colluded to lock out minorities and other 'undesirables.' The poison has been in the system for generations. The question is whether we can survive a chelation technique… and history shows we can muster the courage to manage the pain.
Larry,
I ally with Progressives for now,
You sure had me fooled.
That was me.
I would have a LOT of difficulty bringing myself to vote for Sanders or Warren if the Democrats chose them, but my being in California kinda makes it a moot point.
I'm in NZ - we don't have your people collecting votes
Oh, that only really happened on a large scale during the pandemic
The, For the People Act tried to make adjustments to voting laws that were pandemic emergency measures into permanent practices. It failed to get through Congress.
The For the People Act was heavily pitched by the DNC as saving the republic, and---at least to me---a vomit-inducing amount of sanctimony that I thought it didnt deserve. This was especially so because I had actually read the proposed legislation and know how to understand actual statutes. Most people read the news reports from journalists or watched talking heads on TV..
In this context, I wasn't thinking of the hard sell as "pushy" sales tactics, but simply the opportunity to apply a lot of persuasion as people vote. Even if you restricted canvassers from producing blank ballots, simply having enough of them around that you can reasonably expect almost everyone to have one in their maiil puts voters in too much proximity to persuaders.
JV
Maybe Kiwis are more bloody minded than Americans - but simply having somebody collect your sealed ballot would NOT change the way we vote
The Australians give you a grilled sausage when you vote - that is a decent incentive
John,
Most people read the news reports from journalists or watched talking heads on TV.
Very true unfortunately. I've had the pleasure of reviewing proposed legislation that potentially impacted my favorite industry group (space sector) and it is no easy task. I've also had the pleasure of talking to staffers who essentially said it was their job to read the legislation (and then advise)… not their boss'.
I try not to comment on bills and proposed regulations unless I've read them. Anyone relying too much on journalists to do this for them doesn't understand the risk. Most journalists are not competent enough and wind up relying on those same staffers. One VERY pleasant exception (no matter what you think of her positions) is Rachael Maddow and her staff. Lawrence O'Donnell is no slouch either, but he doesn't show it in the nerdy way Maddow does now and then.
…too much proximity to persuaders.
Gonna have to disagree with you.
Another exception: AOC once explained the knock-on effects of her campaign strategy. She took the trouble to found a slow burn grass roots campaign rather than rely on expensive advertising. This meant she avoided the perpetual funds canvassing which takes up the time of many congress critters, and also meant she could afford decent wages for her interns. The end result was that she had time to do her job and review legislation properly.
This approach has similarities to that taken by the 'teal' indepenents, starting with Helen Haines, whose win in the agricultural seat of Indi demonstrated what happens when support is taken for granted.
Beloved as it is by voters and their dogs across the nation, the democracy sausage isn't a voting incentive because
1. you have to pay for them, and
2. voting is compulsory
The latter point has its problems (dare I say 'snags'? ;-), but it does seem to cut out the shenanigans with making it hard for the wrong kind of people to vote.
The other issue to fix is first past the post voting, which basically locks in a two party/tribe state in perpetuity. Which brings us back to the start of this monologue.
Alfred Differ:
That was me.
"Oh, that's very different. Nevermind." :)
I would have a LOT of difficulty bringing myself to vote for Sanders or Warren if the Democrats chose them...
That's my argument against liberals who argue that Biden is probably the only candidate who can lose to Trump. Who do they think will do better? Usually they have a favorite who they would be more passionate about, but the problem is that their choice would only appeal to a smaller chunk of voters, while others would "have a LOT of difficulty" bringing themselves.
In 2020, Biden was almost no one's first choice, but his strength was that he was almost everyone's second or third choice. People who weren't enthusiastic about him but didn't want another Trump term weren't scared away. I'm not sure what is supposed to have changed, other than that he now has a record that made him my first choice.
Tony Fisk:
Beloved as it is by voters and their dogs across the nation, the democracy sausage isn't a voting incentive because
1. you have to pay for them, and
2. voting is compulsory
Heh. Well then, not so much an incentive as a consolation. "At least there's food there."
The other issue to fix is first past the post voting, which basically locks in a two party/tribe state in perpetuity.
I certainly agree. Not sure at all how to get it fixed when the legislatures who would have to do the fixing are the ones benefiting from the problem. I know California and some others have instituted reforms in this area, but I have a hard time seeing Texas or Florida doing so.
There are two ways a man can go in old age. The first is a rage-filled, bitter, racist, narcissistic, cowardly blowhard who hates a world that didn't go his way. The second is a grateful, kind, slower yet self-effacing and brave gentleman who cares mostly about posterity. The choice couldn't be any clearer.
scidata:
The choice couldn't be any clearer.
The sad thing is that 30-40% of my fellow Americans clearly choose the angry white guy. "Monsters from the id," indeed.
Bull bull bull bull… The GOP already has an inherently gerrymandered Senate. They have cheat gerrymandered to get the House, which should be elected by totally equal enfranchisement. There is no comparison.
I actually think gerrymandering is despicable and there are obvious fixes, such as ranked choice voting systems.
However, u do know that gerrymandering is almost as old as the republic, right? Go back to when the RNC won the house in the early 90s for the first time in 40 years, and gerrymandering was a club that had been wielded almost exclusively by the DNC within most people's memory.
As the RNC won statehouses across the land, that flipped to the point that now gerrymandering is predominantly a RNC weapon. And yes, today gerrymandering is an order of magnitude more effective due to better data analysis and metrics.
You also do know that in states where the DNC holds statehouses, they shamelessly draw districts in their favor, as well? I'll cite Virginia as an example.
I completely support fixing the legal abomination that is gerrymandering, but trying to fix a legal distortion with another legal distortion (what I consider a defective voting process) is bad policy.
John Viril:
You also do know that in states where the DNC holds statehouses, they shamelessly draw districts in their favor, as well?
The Republican-stacked courts and the ussc have ruled over and over again that partisan gerrymandering is perfectly fine. Given that, I am not discomfited by the few Democratic states where it is possible to play by the same rules. We can't do anything about Texas or North Carolina, but we can at least fight back with Illinois and New York.
Any time the courts deign to rule against the practice across the board, I'll gladly give up my gerrymandered states for theirs. In fact, the courts are more likely to do so when it looks like the advantage could shift to the Democrats. But I'm not going to be shamed into unilaterally disarming.
(I know our host has a different take on this issue, but that's where I stand)
John Viril:
Gee, what might the ROI be for a canvasser going into a NYC high rise vs. trying to canvass a Wisconsin dairy farm community? Given the logistics of voter residency, the DNC will embed a massive ROI advantage for their canvassers vs. their RNC counterparts into voting legislation.
If this sort of thing were feasible, I happen to think a more likely scenario is that Republican canvassers would try to get urbanites to hand over their ballots and then toss them into the trash. Something of that sort was actually done by Republicans in the governor's race that Stacey Abrams lost to Brian Kemp (with Kemp as secretary of state overseeing his own election). Meanwhile, those Wisconsin dairy farmers can be counted on to vote Republican without help.
Alfred correctly points out that collection of ballots is more typically done at a church or a hospital or a nursing home to assist people who have difficulty getting themselves to a drop box in person. Or by a family member helping out aging parents and the like. The collector would generally be a trusted individual to the voter. So limiting such collection seems to me to be an exercise in voter suppression. The scenario that worries you--strangers convincing urban residents to open their doors to them, be convinced to vote the way the canvasser wants on the spot, and then trust the complete stranger to deliver the ballot--seems like an awfully specific and low-probability scenario to base a suspicion of a particular political party on.
Tony, yeah-yeah… the preferential ballot used to be just for Australia and the Hugo Awards. Now some USA states are SLOWLY implementing it and the fanatics are all terrified.
JV: “However, u do know that gerrymandering is almost as old as the republic, right? Go back to when the RNC won the house in the early 90s for the first time in 40 years, and gerrymandering was a club that had been wielded almost exclusively by the DNC within most people's memory.”
I respect that you disapprove of the crime. And it has long been around. And Republicans did it no less, in the 90s and earlier.
What matters is that NOW, except for Illinois and Maryland and VA… most blue states have pulled out of that toxic horror… often in rebellions by dem voters against their own party leaders. As in California, where the results were 100% positive and DP margins went UP!
Sir, John Roberts has ONE top priority, to protect gerrymandering. His rationalizations – the Roberts Doctrine – will be remembered on a par with John Taney’s Dred Scott decision.
Oh and I will happily wager over tie “disenfranchisement ratios scores” in even Illinois, compared to the average in ALL Red-run states except Alaska and Utah (where it doesn’t matter.)
The crux? Dems (your repeated use of “DNC”) nowadays ALWAYS are the ones pushing bills to end the crime, and to ease dark money out of politics.
Scidata,
I think there might be a neurological reason for these two different paths. For most humans, especially male humans, the most dangerous years of their lives are between puberty and the mid-twenties, when their frontal lobes are mostly hooked up. The strange thing we have been seeing a whole lot of lately, especially in the USA, are people who are middle-aged and older who have completely gone in for Option 1 (angry, spiteful, etc.). Now humans start losing myelin as early as 30, and the curve can be brutal. If your humans are well maintained, they are more likely to go for Option 2 (grateful, happy, etc.). However, with inequality skyrocketing since the Reagan days, a whole lot of humans have not been well maintained, which probably has a lot to do with why so many have gone bad. And given that their myelin levels are on a downward spiral, it's unlikely that if the economy starts to improve for everyone, that very many of these Option 1 folks are going to get any better.
Paul SB
@Paul SB,
So it sounds as if Republican policies make people unhappy enough to vote Republican.
Great gig if you can get it.
Paul SB: myelin levels are on a downward spiral
Consumption of high quality fat has really tailed off due to cost, cultural shifts, corporate sugarization of the masses, and plain ignorance. Maybe the Aussies are onto something with their democracy sausage.
What we already know...
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/04/opinion/populism-trump-liberalism.html
...
In 2017, the Vox writer Dylan Matthews and his colleagues read all of Trump’s books on business and politics, and concluded that zero-sum thinking is the core of his mind-set. “You hear lots of people say that a great deal is when both sides win,” Trump and his co-author wrote in “Think Big and Kick Ass.” “That is a bunch of crap. In a great deal you win — not the other side. You crush the opponent and come away with something better for yourself.”
MAGA is the zero-sum concept in political form. What’s good for immigrants is bad for the American-born. What’s good for Black people is bad for whites. Trade deals are exploitation. Our NATO allies are out to screw us. Every day for Trump is an Us/Them dominance game.
...
Tony,
I hope that keeps working for AOC, though I'm not optimistic. In congressional sessions where little gets done (like now) it kinda doesn't matter. If she doesn't read the bill that renames a postal office, I don't really care. Even for bigger bills, I can deal with them not reading it well because we kinda trust our congress-critters to hire competent staff… much like we trust our Presidents to appoint competent heads of the executive agencies. Doesn't always work, but legislators like to legislate for some reason. I consider it an acceptable compromise as long as staffers have to deal with the public and lobbying folks too.
2. voting is compulsory
I would oppose that here and help fight it in Court.
It's exactly backwards in a nation where The People are the root source of power, so I'd oppose it on principle… but still vote if I lost that case.
The other issue to fix is first past the post voting, which basically locks in a two party/tribe state in perpetuity.
Almost locks it.
That's what prompted California to enact ballot initiatives and recall elections a long time ago.
That's how we eventually forced our current jungle primary system (not ideal) and took redistricting from the state legislature.
The CA jungle primary system is not perfect... only the best system in the nation and the best you can get without preferential balloting.
When it results in the top two being from one party - both dems - a funny, unexpected thing happens. The two dems realize... 'forty percent of the voters in my district are folks who could swing this... if I go to republicans with interest and compassion and listen.'
voters in the minority party INCREASED their influence under this system.
Re - Legislation
IMHO the problem is that the US system does not differentiate between "Top Level" and lower levels
Here (NZ) Acts of Parliament are quite short - they start with the "Purpose Statement" and then a few pages (10 or so) of amplification
The thousands of pages of "Regulations" that may be needed are done by the Bureaucrats - and can easily be updated when they screw up
IMHO this is the sensible way to do it
Having the top level people produce documents that are thousands of pages long is just begging for lobbyists to "help" by writing the regulations
I don't mind lobbyists 'helping' to write legislation... as long as we know they did. Transparency matters.
I've helped do this for my favorite industry group. Well... I've helped our more talented legal folks do it through financial support and constructive criticism. The specific example that comes to mind was an old 'zero gee/zero tax' idea where a tax holiday was to be declared for a number of years for certain kinds of services that didn't exist yet. We didn't get it passed, but we learned a lot about how bills get written and reviewed. It's not as simple as people imagine. Even "Schoolhouse Rock" dumbed it down. 8)
Scidata,
I would want to see the nutrition label on democracy sausage. Your best fats come from oily fish. The big explosion in hominid brain growth happened when they hit the coast and started making fishing hooks. But everybody (that isn't Hindu, anyway) thinks that living the life means eating steak every day. That's what my grandfather did. He told me that a heart attack feels like having a truck run over your chest for a couple hours. Obviously it wasn't his first heart attack that killed him. It was his ninth.
Vegetable sources are less likely to kill you in a very painful way, but they are short-chain fatty acids, and human bodies need long-chain. Human bodies can convert them, but it's not a very efficient process.
It still isn't entirely clear how much of the decline is in the diet and how much of it is in brain exercise. You have to have the raw material, but like building muscle, you can eat all the protein you like, but if you don't exercise, all you get is kidney damage. Or obsession with protein has some big drawbacks.
Paul SB
Larry,
The Republican gig depends a lot on keeping the public ignorant enough to swallow their fascist propaganda. Think about all those old Holocaust movies that showed the horrors that Jewish people faced under the Nazis, but never, ever mentioned any of the other people they sent to the labor camps - like Jehovah's Witnesses, Gypsies, gay people, and the primary raison d'ĂȘtre of fascism, anyone they labeled communist.
Paul SB
Paul SB,
My autistic son would have been on the list, too. The Nazis had a thing about 'useless mouths'. A lot of mental wards had their inmates eliminated.
Funny thing, I went to a high school that was basically preparing US and international students overseas for the college/corporate track (ISKL) and somehow the Holocaust didn't come up...
Pappenheimer
Dr Brin:
voters in the minority party INCREASED their influence under this [jungle primary] system.
They have influence over which majority-party candidate gets elected, no doubt with some promises over their issues.
They do not have influence over their state's contribution to which party controls the House or Senate agenda. And these days, the vote for House Speaker or Senate Majority Leader seems to be more important than any individual votes on legislation.
Ok, call me Captain Obvious.
Like most of us of a certain age, I was familiar with the film Dirty Dancing in the late 1980s. I thought that having the protagonist called "Baby" was too cute for words, but chalked it up to the fact that many of the soundtrack lyrics had "baby" in them--"Baby, I love you," and such.
Never until now realized that the goofy money-line at the end, "No one puts Baby in a corner," was referring to the common punishment for a baby of putting them in a corner as a time-out. Was the whole movie writing to just that bit?
I want my money back. :)
Larry,
Probably. Swayze actually resisted the line, so it likely got dictated from above.
Screenwriters are supposed to have a clear picture in their minds of how their story resolves before they've written much of anything. If that line sounds like a "Resolution Of The Drama" in your ears, it likely came from the writer who planned it right from the start.
Apparently, Lionsgate plans to do a sequel that will be out sometime in 2025. Maybe we will find out. 8)
------
Knowing your story's Ending is one of the advice suggestions I've seen pretty much everywhere, but in screenplays they absolutely hammer on it. You've got about 110 pages* to get it done. Unlike a novelist who can take a more leisurely path to it, screenwriters have to make a beeline for it.
* The other 10 pages at the front is all you have for hooking a viewer. The dramatic premise has to be fully sketched very quickly.
Looks like the Squamous Six Supremes have decided to fast track the Colorado Trump case. Can't wait to find out what travesty of justice they plan to foist on us.
I wonder, does it bother any of the three justices that Trump appointed that he's already said that they should support him because they owe him?
Alfred,
Movie endings don't have to be as dramatic as, say, a Marvel flick...but you are right, any story needs a conclusion. My younger brother was actually upset that at the end of the Harrison Ford movie "Witness" the big city police detective and the Amish farmwife part ways and, it is implied, never see each other again. Neither can leave their own, entirely separate world for the other. He'd expected a Hollywood Happy Ending.
I'm happy with my own first novel ending of a ranger being browbeaten into actually returning to the cottage of the semi-widowed woman he wants, by the woman he's been adventuring with. Just before the Winter Solstice. Will she say yes? That's why I wrote part 2.
Pappenheimer
Alfred Differ:
Knowing your story's Ending is one of the advice suggestions I've seen pretty much everywhere,
Did you happen to watch season 1 of Netflix's The Diplomat? Without spoiling anything, they obviously had to know what the season cliffhanger was going to look like before they wrote anything else, but I'm curious where the story will go from there, and not at all sure they knew that part when they wrote the first season.
That season finale also had several characters who may or may not have been killed in an explosion. I suspect that who survived and who didn't depends somewhat on contract negotiations with the actors, which means that those plot points can't have been determined in advance. The writers are going to have to see who they can work with before writing storylines for them.
“Think about all those old Holocaust movies that showed the horrors that Jewish people faced under the Nazis, but never, ever mentioned any of the other people they sent to the labor camps - like Jehovah's Witnesses, Gypsies, gay people, and the primary raison d'ĂȘtre of fascism, anyone they labeled communist.”
Um… LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL, PLAYING FOR TIME, the incredible flick EUROPA, EUROPA, and I can see scenes now in my head from a couple more I can’t name.
onward
onward
Post a Comment