I took a quiz I stumbled onto from Twitter last night. I can’t find the link now, but it was something about 8 Political Traits. You took a quiz regarding your reactions to several political statements, and from that, it judged your position on 4 different paired-trait spectra. Like, Authoritarian/Libertarian, Economic Freedom/Control, etc.
One thing I was struck with was that it got Conservatives/Traditionalists completely wrong. Of course, Progressives usually get Conservatives wrong…it has been shown over and over that those on the Right understand the Left much better than the reverse. Charles Krauthammer’s formulation is the Left thinks the Right is Evil, and the Right thinks the Left is Stupid. Which makes sense, of course: the Right thinks the Left is stupid because they understand the Left’s viewpoints and find them immature or unworkable; the Left thinks the Right is Evil because they can’t understand how anyone can oppose the compassion of a $15 minimum wage and free birth-control for women.
Anyway, what bothered me was they characterized Progressives as believing that the human race can and should progress toward enlightenment. The implication is that the past is always ignorant, and as we learn things, we can improve. What is the opposite of that? Why, that some people think that we should cling to the past because that’s how we’ve always done it! Meaning, the quiz assumed that conservatives are conservative out of fear or reflexive adherence to tradition out of belief that Tradition is simply a Good.
That’s not my view at all. Maybe I’m projecting to the rest of the Right and/or conservatives, but I think I’m not alone in this. I’m convinced conservatives are Thinkers, and spend time questioning and trying to understand everything.
In my opinion, Conservatives conserve Tradition because Tradition arises out of What Works. Humans are humans: we are biologically programmed (whether by God or Evolution) to exploit/game any system to its extinction, but also to require systems to reach our individual and social goals. We are biologically programmed (whether by God or Evolution) so that in our interactions with the opposite sex, any/all errors of judgment result in pregnancy, because *anything* that results in reproduction is a successful reproduction strategy, and those traits of selfishness, sloppiness, pettiness, dishonesty, manipulation, etc, that assist in reproduction will be passed on.
As such, I support Traditions because those are time-tested ways to avoid pain, disaster, chaos, poverty, loneliness, heartlessness, death, despair, depression and Justin Bieber.
That doesn’t mean Traditions are immutable. We can learn as a society, and do. We can rise above our selfishness and pettinesses, and do.
But you have to make the case. You can’t just insist that there is an end goal of perfect equality between all people and all preferences, and anyone who obstructs that progress is wrong. You have to explain how the direction of progress you want is helpful to everyone involved. You have to make the case for overturning Tradition. You have to move slowly when you do make changes, so that we have time to adjust to changes, and to reverse if it proves to be more harmful than helpful.
And most of all, you have to insightfully analyze and clearly identify and explain who pays the price and who benefits. Assertions are not acceptable as proof.
If something benefits 1% of the nation and makes things worse for 60% of the population, it should not be done. More time should be taken to ensure that the benefit is worth the cost, and to minimize the cost as much as possible.
So in the quiz, seeing that they characterized Conservatives as preferring Tradition simply because it was Tradition, it lost any/all credibility with me.
Lately it seems like every time PC Bushi mentions a book, I have to respond I didn’t like it very much, or at all.
That made me ask, what doI like?
Here’s a partial list:
I like 50s Heinlein, but not 60s.
I like 60s, 70s, and 80s Larry Niven SF, but not his fantasy (mostly).
I like 80s and 90s Cherryh, but to the best of my knowledge based on a brief research attempt, not her 70s and by the ’10s, start feeling meh
I liked Bujold until recently
I liked Brust’s early works, but the later his work, the less I like it.
I used to like Hambly, but she wasn’t re-readable.
I like Saberhagen, but sometimes he just kept digging in played-out mines
To be honest, I guess, I’ve read a lot that was worth reading, but not worth re-reading or recommending.
As such, there are probably more books and authors I have complaints about than I enjoy. That’s the nature of the beast, I guess. Most things fall along a bell curve, and truly excellent books are one or more standard deviations above the mean, and the mean of all SFF novels/stories ever written includes some poor writing.
The rest of this post includes some musing on elements that make a good story. It is also intended to be a continuation of thoughts from this post, and inspired by the very excellent posts by my good friend and consummate gentleman, PC Bushi, found here and here.
I like conflict. I’d like to say allreaders do, but maybe all I can actually insist is that all readers should. It can be internal conflict, or opposed action, but I want there to be some doubt about how things are going to turn out.
Yes, yes, the hero is going to win. That’s the point of reading a book, I guess. The good guy losing most of the time is called “life”. We consume fiction because it provides the comforting illusion that there is some overall, overarching narrative to the vicissitudes of life.
For me, the interesting thing is how is the hero going to win?
The very first thing to do, then, is make me care about the character. If I don’t care about the character, how he wins isn’t going to interest me.
There are many different ways that you, as an author, can make me care about a character:
make me see the issues he struggles with are the same ones I do
make me see him wanting reasonable things/goals, but being thwarted…particularly unfairly thwarted
make me see him really committed to success, perhaps well beyond what I would do (that way I can be inspired to persist in difficulties myself)
Next, give him conflict. They type of story you are writing dictates the type of conflict they have. Or, alternatively, the type of conflict they encounter dictates what kind of book it is:
If he is going through an unfamiliar world or society, then the conflict is the hero trying to return to the normal world, and his efforts to escape let you show me the world/society you thought up. Alternatively, the hero might need to explore to figure out aspects of this new world/society to find happiness or even just survive. Either way, it should show the reader some subtle truth about the world we live in, in contrast. The struggle is in dealing with new and unexpected aspects in each new encounter. This is a Milieu story.
If he is dealing with a disrupting occurrence, then the conflict is obviously trying to deal with the disruption. It can be personally disruptive or disruptive to society, or even existence of humanity. An asteroid strike, or perhaps an earthquake or zombie apocalypse are good examples of this. Alternatively, the hero could be the disruptive force, trying to impose his will on the world, like in a caper movie like Ocean’s 11 or Kelly’s Heroes. Either way, the conflict comes from the obstacles the hero encounters in trying to resolve the issue or impose his will on the universe. This is an Event story.
You, as the author, might also want to explore a concept, like: what if teleportation were reality? How would it work? In this sort of story, the conflict is in dealing with unexpected or non-obvious impacts of the concept. This is where Hard SF really shines. Poor examples of this are when someone sets up the world, then lets the Hero “discover” all the exploits. This was handled really poorly in the “Golden Age of the Solar Clipper” series (first book: Quarter Share by Nathan Lowell). The hero “exploits” a labor system that apparently was used by idiots for at least a generation. He succeeds at everything he tries, the things he “figures out” that impress everyone else are sophomoric in insight, and there isn’t even an antagonist. The best conflict is when the antagonist is exploiting the idea to the protagonist’s detriment, and the protagonist has to figure out how to stop it…preferably without just using another exploit…at the very least, the exploit should not be obvious. This is an Idea story. I think many “serial killer” stories are Idea stories: “What if someone developed a way to exploit society to murder/rape/assault people without being caught/stopped?”
The final type of story depends on conflict internal to the character. The protagonist needs to change, and it has only recently become obvious. The process of changing, of figuring out what to change into, and the normal human resistance to changing oneself are the conflict that drives the story. This is a Character story.
Obviously, these four concepts can arc beyond just one book. The Jhereg series is someone what of a character concept, although individual books seem to be more Event stories. The whole series is, of course, a milieu, and the milieu being explored is not just geographic (Dragaera) but societal/racial, as each book explores some inherent aspect of a Dragaerean house.
But this is all science fiction.
I also really like the Jack Reacher series.
Jack Reacher’s character really doesn’t change over the stories. The milieu he’s exploring is modern-day United States, so it isn’t a milieu story. There is a “What if?” concept of, “what if there were a sort-of modern-day Super Hero who went around the nation solving problems that the law couldn’t solve?” But it seems to me to be, at its core, an event story. Something happens, and Reacher tries to figure out what is happening, then once he figures out the mystery, he acts (often very violently) to impose his will and stop the bad guys from doing bad guy stuff.
Good stories often combine the elements. There are Milieu, Idea, and Character concepts included in the Event Story movie Die Hard. There are Milieu concepts in Titanic. I think Cameron wanted it to be a Character story, but in my opinion, it failed at that, but succeeded by being so strong as an Event story.
Donald Hamilton’s Matt Helm series is really good, too.
They are all Event stories. Like Reacher, either the protagonist starts ignorant, or what the protagonist thinks is the original premise often turns out to be false. The conflict comes in the protagonist collecting clues about reality, then responding to those clues, then acting. And much of the conflict also involves not knowing how the problem will be solved, as initial plans go wrong and the protagonist deals with the unexpected. You know the hero isn’t going to die, of course, but there is often a cost the protagonist pays to succeed: damage, or a supporting character important to the protagonist is killed.
The Matt Helm series is interesting in that the protagonist’s character doesn’t really change over time, but still is a character story in that Helm seems to have normal human emotions and desires, yet is forced to do some fairly brutal things to accomplish the mission. The reader (or, at least, the continuing reader) doesn’t lose sympathy for Helm not just because Helm’s character trait of Commitment to Duty is shown as being incredibly strong, and not just because that commitment to duty is shown as necessary to preventing catastrophe, but because the author shows us the emotional price Helm pays for that commitment.
In contrast, in ERB novels Princess of Mars, the Land that Time Forgot, and the People that Time Forgot, there never is any character conflict. They do the right thing because it is the right thing, with hardly a thought. It ends up leaving the impression that because the hero does it, it therefore is the right thing.
I’m not saying a protagonist must have a desire to be a cad to be sympathetic, but humans are selfish, and shortsighted, and petty, and often ignorant of the implications of their decisions. A good book with good conflict acknowledges those issues.
It doesn’t mean that I favor character over plot.
It does mean that the reasons people do things are important to whether a character is likeable or not, and believable or not, and these reasons often provide motive force to the plot. Why does a character want to do things? Absent any internal conflict, authors too often rely on plot devices to keep the action going. “I saved Tarkus’ life, so Tarkus will save my life” seems more like a plot device. The author knew he would need Tarkus to save John Carter’s life to resolve some conflict and needed plausible motivation for Tarkus to do so, so had Carter save his. It seems too obvious, like it happened because the author needed it to. In contrast, in Jhereg, Vlad wants to avoid taking an action that would cause Morollan to break his oath. Placing a friend’s value system above your own life is an admirable loyalty that drives the plot and increases the reader’s commitment to the protagonist and the story (although wanting to find a way to preserve both is still expected, normal, and included). It is a character element, sure, but it not “characterization over plot,” but rather an effective plot rather than just a plot device.
It means that a story with weak characterization is also going to suffer in plotting.
It means that among the five elements of character, plot, pacing, dialogue, description (some people identify different elements), a novel can be saved by excellence in just one element, but it can also be killed by incompetence in just one element. Most likely, a story that does one or two elements very well will make the other elements more effective. Good dialogue helps in making character and pacing better. Better pacing helps plot. Good description helps everything. And yes, good character helps make plot development more intuitive.
There is room for a difference of opinion over what is “plausible”, and consequently, what is an effective plot vs what is a clumsy plot device.
This probably needs editing for coherence, but I’m not going to do it. For good or ill, this is my stream-of-consciousness, non-exhaustive explanation of why I like some books and don’t like other books.
Spoiler: Okay, that was too strong, and I withdraw the charge. Sort of.
Don’t you love it when a writer starts off the story in the middle of the action, so you are immediately caught up in laser blasts and flying hand-axes?
So here’s the background.
There is a Pulp Resurgence going on. As a hopeful writer who is hopefully on the verge of being able to complete my first novel, I noticed the trend and thought it might be something worth paying attention to. As in, maybe I might want to write a pulp story.
So I tried to re-read some pulp SFF I liked when I was in my teens. And didn’t like it anymore.
The stereotype of pulp is that it is simplistic, juvenile, and immature. Its fans disagree. And they have a point: the writings of Dashiell Hammett are considered by some to be literature worth studying.
I personally enjoy reading Louis L’Amour, and while he is definitely a pulp Western writer, he has some interesting characters, occasional fascinating character growth, and some fairly intricate plotting at times.
But when it comes to SFF, I have to agree with the stereotype: it is immature writing that has been so surpassed by the state of the art that it doesn’t seem worth reading anymore.
So, of course, I had to say this on twitter, because that’s the Proper Location for Virtue Signalling.
Full disclosure: Twitter has changed me. It has helped me to mature and not be bothered by responses and attitudes that would have infuriated me not long ago. On the other hand, I’ve gotten to enjoy mild trolling, so I’m not always as careful with precise critiques as I would have been in the past.
And PC Bushi and I have a long-running mild disagreement…we both love SFF, but our tastes seem to be diametrically opposed. What he loves, I dislike. The only thing I love that I know he’s read is the Chronicles of Amber, but that’s enough to know that the reverse isn’t necessarily true. More data is needed.
Anyway, some people had been ripping on some authors PC Bushi liked, and we had a twitter conversation about it, as PC Bushi details here.
That led to me getting called out by a commenter here:
I am sorry but it just reads like nathan hasn’t read anything and is just using other people’s talking points. Couldn’t you describe Brust’s Taltos series as a guy just wandering around killing black elves?
(He later corrects himself note “black elves” is Cherryh’s construction, not Brust’s, but the Dragaereans are called elves, so his point is not undermined by the mistake)
Santa Claus died on December 25th in the early hours of the morning. His death caused the Depression. I know it sounds crazy, but I was there.
Of course, if you’re reading this, it means I’m dead. I’ve set it up with my friend down at the Herald to fly up here and look for this if no one hears from me within a week. I hope it works, because somebody needs to know.
For so many years I just thought it was a nightmare, maybe just some child’s method of explaining events that are beyond a child’s scope of understanding. Everyone I told either laughed or got angry, so I learned to keep it to myself. But too many bodies have been turning up lately. It’s bad enough that it’s on the same night every year, but the fact that it’s all over the world is even more telling. Of course, that same fact made it hard to see the trend, but now that I know, it was easy to track down.
If I just come out and say it, you won’t believe me, and you’ll perceive this writing as a spoof, or maybe a cruel-minded hoax. But it’s vital that you believe, so I’ll give you the facts first.
You’ve been told in your history classes that the Great Depression started on November 10, 1929. Wrong. Yes, there was a market decline that started on that day. But the despair, panic, and global economic devastation didn’t actually begin until December 25th, the day the world woke up and found that, for the first time ever, Santa didn’t bring anything.
Imagine the results of that discovery. Try, if you will, to imagine a world in which Santa did bring presents every Christmas for generations, then suddenly stopped without warning. It can be hard for children to learn that there is no Santa Claus, so imagine how hard it was on the adults. Picture their pain at the sight of heart-broken children, distraught without presents to open on Christmas morn.
Think of it: a betrayal greater than Nixon’s, a shock more jolting than Kennedy’s death. It’s no wonder that nearly every adult lost faith in the world, so that a minor market dip escalated into a major financial catastrophe; that so many people committed suicide rather than face their disappointment; that so many suicides concealed the small slaughter; that no adult from that era will admit Santa ever existed, and even started buying presents themselves to perpetuate the Santa Claus “myth;” that children from that time remember the mood of despair more vividly than they recall a lack of Christmas presents, but their first clue was a barren Christmas tree.
Have I convinced you yet that Santa didn’t come that 1929 Christmas Eve? Because he actually did make it to some places that night, before he was…No, I think I’ll explain it another way.
I was three months shy of my fourth birthday, and was eagerly anticipating Santa’s visit. I lay in bed, awake. Gentle flakes had fallen earlier that evening, and the moon shone down on the fresh white snow so brightly that I didn’t need a candle as I slipped out of bed and down the stairs. No child could resist mysterious sounds on Christmas Eve. It had to be Santa Claus, it had to be!
No! It was a regular man, face pale in the moonlight, a dark cloak wrapped around him as if to ward off the winter chill. He seemed weak, perhaps starving. I remember that I almost spoke aloud, to offer him something to eat. But some sense stopped me, and I really believe that saved my life.
At that moment a sound came from the roof, and the man froze. I mean, he was already completely motionless, but there was a change, as if every sense sharpened. He suddenly looked like my cat when it sees a bird fluttering with a broken wing. Like a predator when it senses his prey. Then he disappeared.
Yes, disappeared. One second he was there, the next he had vanished from view, like the shadows had swallowed him in one silent gulp.
A large sack landed in our fireplace, accompanied by a small avalanche of snow, and then a large man was squeezing out of the hearth place. He was huge, but moved quite rapidly for his bulk. His motions were without haste, but within seconds the stockings were full and the presents were underneath the tree. Santa paused to take a bite of the cookie I had left the night before, and then–
It’s hard to describe what happened next. I guess Santa has to be able to move quickly, if he can travel to every house in the world in a single night. That speed was all that kept him alive for those few minutes, but in the end, the pale man was faster. As I’ve since learned in my research, beings such as this man can move inhumanly fast. They wrestled desperately, but in complete silence. It was obvious that it was to the death. The last image I had was of Santa’s booted feet kicking in mid-air, then going limp.
I must have fainted, because the next thing I remember is my mother shaking me awake, scolding me for trying to stay awake and catch Santa. I thought it was just a nightmare until I found out that many of my friends did not get visited by Santa that year. But no one believed me when I told my dream, even when I pointed out the cookie crumbs ground into the carpet. And as I grew older, I realized that no one ever discovered a body, dressed in a red suit or not, so it must have been a bad dream.
But now I have finally realized to the truth: Santa was killed by, and has become, a vampire.
I know that despite my careful building of my case, you don’t believe me. You can’t, because it’s too strange, too far outside your known world. So I challenge you to test it. Investigate the three or four mysterious disappearances every Christmas. Read accounts of the unusually high rate of suicides at Christmas during the Depression, and consider how a “fall” from a great height can help to conceal puncture marks and a general shortage of blood in a body.
Consider, if you will, how a vampire out-performs the average mortal, and then calculate the effect of augmentation on a man who already does not age, already can fly around the world, can already move incredibly fast and dexterously, already only comes out at night. And thank whatever God you worship that Santa comes out only once a year. Be grateful that he retains enough scraps of his generosity and compassion that he limits himself to just enough blood to sustain himself for another year, or he could depopulate the Earth in a twinkling.
And so, since I now know the truth, it falls to me to eliminate this monstrosity. I may be over 70, but I have gotten myself in great shape. Good enough to be taken seriously in my attempt to be the oldest person to make a solo visit to the North Pole. And if I can find him in daylight, maybe I’ll have a chance. If not, I hope they find my camp, and this laptop computer, and this account. And I hope someone believes, before it’s too late.
Remember, he sees you when you’re sleeping, he knows when you’re awake.
And he’s HUNGRY.
Bottom Line Up Front: It isn’t good. But it isn’t as bad as many people are saying. Reforming health care is harder than anyone is admitting.
So is the GOP Congress saying this is the final version of their health care goals? Or is it a transitory law to tide over until final law?
Because while I do, of course, want more market-based reforms, not sure we can get there in one single jump.
There is so much wrong with our current health care system. It really is just Pre-Paid Health Maintenance Plans. This separates price from cost, which makes things more expensive. Moreover, it punishes those who are cautious with their health, and reward those who are reckless and consume more health care. Imagine how much it would cost if vehicle fuel were sold under and “insurance” plan where you paid a monthly fee and could use as much as you wanted. The person who commutes 5 miles a day in a Mazda Miata would be subsidizing the person who drives a Hummer 90 miles every day, takes long trips every weekend, and is a leadfoot.
So the first order of business is to wean the nation away from the current Pre-Paid Health Maintenance plans referred to as “insurance.” But that’s only the beginning. We need:
insurance to pretty much be only catastrophic.
retail clinics where RNs triage for need to be seen by PA, who then triages for need for specialist. Basic check an illness isn’t serious for out-of-pocket money.
hospitals and doctors to publish prices and full fees for all treatment.
a system to allow people to be guinea pigs for new treatments *if they want*, i.e., the rich and the terminal, w/o lawsuit threat.
a total reform pharma laws so there aren’t perverse incentives in development, especially patent rules.
effort to get bulk of medical care shifted to out-of-pocket, to reduce paperwork overhead, increase competition, and increase choice.
plan resolve exploitation of “free” medical care to illegal aliens. At the very least, that means new, robust collection laws. Could also mean ensuring all illegal aliens leave. Can’t reform healthcare w/o it.
A cap to end-of-life costs. The tricky part is if you heal the problem, it won’t be the end of life. But when people pay for insurance (even catastrophic), they don’t want to be told a cost restriction prevented them (or their loved one) from getting treatment. We need to get people used to the idea that there is a reasonable amount that others will be willing/able to pay to save a life, but beyond that, the costs should be borne by the family and friends that love them most. Because as in most things in life, there are few easy choices, and with each choice comes drawbacks and other unpleasant consequences. Part of being an adult is deciding which unpleasant consequence is the easiest for you to accept.
It takes time to get massive, cumbersome health care system to shift to the free market-based solutions. This can’t be done in just a few weeks. Particularly since there are powerful lobbies that want to prevent market based-solutions from taking away their golden parachutes.
Even worse, the public itself is a huge part of the problem. We are never going to improve health care until we get people to grasp Medicaid doesn’t improve health outcomes. Of course, this also needs to be understood by people who have enough money to never be on Medicare. We need everyone to understand that just having medical coverage is not health. Health insurance is an illusionary security blanket that people want, and will give up rights and money to the government to get it. That illusion is part of what is making it so politically difficult to repeal Obamacare & reform healthcare system.
Imagine they repealed Obamacare completely yesterday. The first thing that would happen is the news organizations would be screaming about all the people who are no longer covered. They would be doing their best to stir up panic. Repealing Obamacare wholesale would push most of the population to consider (and perhaps embrace) Single Payer, just to have that illusion of security. It would be a political disaster.
The most likely outcome is Democrats would take back Congress in 2018. I do not have confidence that President Trump would veto Single Payer with such an obvious mandate; he doesn’t have any history of commitment to free market principles, and pretty clearly seems to want to be remembered as a President that served his people. Giving them Single Payer when they seem to want it would satisfy his ego.
So we can’t just throw 10s of millions of citizens into a free market system. That would be a political disaster that would most likely lead to Single Payer.
What if we go back to the previous system?
Was anyone happy with the previous system? It was still a Pre-Paid Health Maintenance system. We still had spiraling costs because price and cost were not obviously linked. Democrats would demagogue the crap out of it. It seems like it would end up in the same place as no plan at all: Democrats take Congress, and we get Single Payer.
So I’m okay with some incremental changes for now, or a transition plan. But yeah: I’m not happy at all if this is their final plan.
The Good Points:
Right now, I think there is no personal mandate. The mandate is to insurance companies to provide to anyone. They had to keep a penalty in so that people wouldn’t wait until sick before buying insurance (which destroys the benefit of risk pools). But the penalty is from the insurance company for letting your insurance lapse, not from the federal government for not buying insurance. That’s slightly better.
Still, I agree with Ben Shapiro’s conclusion: “you’ve actually created a gradual cementing of key elements of Obamacare.” They just made Obamacare into GOPCare. But how do we *get* to market-based health care system with *real* reform w/o losing Congress and getting Single Payer?
My best suggestion is to spend the next three years in preparation: write legislation that encourages Retail Clinics. Pass Tort Reform. Deport enough illegal aliens that the rest self-deport, lowering the stress to the ER system and the cost to the hospital system. Pass laws requiring hospitals to post prices, so competition can begin. Then right after the 2020, then drop the big law that gets rid of any health insurance except catastrophic, caps heroic efforts, establishes tax-free health savings accounts, and pushes all the previous preparatory market-based reforms to 11.
Then sit back and demagogue to the hilt all the successes and improved health & cost outcomes. This is one area the GOP always fails: they seem to not have a plan to sidestep the Democrats’ ally in the mainstream news media industry. Trump has shown them how to use social media to get directly to the people; the GOP Congress needs to spend the next three years before they drop the big Reform Law preparing their PR blitz.
One other thing: Perhaps grandfather in anyone over 50? It is easier to wean the young from government health care, since they are mostly healthy, by and large.
I had little confidence in Ryan since the Omnibus last year. I had little confidence in him. He’s like meh to accidentally good. And yet, he’s *still* better than Boehner, and Boehner was *still* better than Pelosi.
I think this stinky turd of a reform bill is more due to the House than the Senate. So we need to focus on finding ways to express our displeasure to the House. The best way is to get them out of office. But we need to primary them with strong GOP candidates. NOT give Congress to the Democrats.
I maybe skipped over too many steps. What I’m trying to do is figure out how to make free market solution politically viable. I don’t see how to get there from here, right now. And I’m willing to give the GOP more time to prep the battlespace to make it easier to pass a successful (and thus, lasting) free market solution to our health care system.