Author: skzb

I play the drum.

FUCK post-modernism

I made a tweet regarding events in Chile on this day in 1973, and included a link to an article that, placing the blame above all on Washington, was also critical of Allende.  Someone tweeted this back: “FWIW that narrative differs from the one you find in Chile, where e.g. Allende is regarded as socialist.”

The word “narrative” jumped out at me, and I realized suddenly that it had been months since I last spewed forth my utter hatred and disgust for post-modern philosophy.

Post-modernism is built on the notion that we can’t actually know anything, we only construct “narratives.” The very concept of “narrative” carries the implication that one is as good as another, and one chooses a narrative based on one’s goals.  But goals are subjective; truth is objective, and thus to interpret the world based on narrative is to deny that it is possible to actually know anything.  But all of human progress has come from the effort to know things, and then act on that knowledge.  It’s not about “narrative,” it’s about the effort to discover the  laws of motion that guide processes in the objective world.  This inevitably leads the post-modernist to reject the concept of progress.  I find this appalling.  Also, stupid.

Post-modernism works very hard to use language that obfuscates and excludes–that’s why it’s so easily subject to hoaxing; anything that wants to consider itself a science ought to make clarity and precision and transparency guiding principles.  In particular, post-modernism uses Marxist-sounding lingo in its effort to undermine what is most vital for Marxism–that is, understanding social processes and communicating that understanding to the working class.

As I said earlier, post-modernism attacks and rejects the very notion of progress.  They do so, today, using the latest and most advanced technology that progress has produced.

Post-modernism is built on attacking Enlightenment beliefs.  There were, to be sure, ideas produced by the Enlightenment that deserve serious criticism: the perfectibility of Man, for example, or the belief that human thought can be independent of time, place, and material conditions.  But post-modernism attacks what was most progressive in the Enlightenment: the idea that human beings can learn, can work to improve conditions, can make advances in social and economic equality.

Post-modernism not only rejects the notion that we can learn from history, but, in many cases, insists that there is no such thing–that there is no objective truth to be known in past events.  The idea that people will study history from the point of view of their own beliefs is not new; historians have known it as long as the discipline of history has existed.  To go from there to utter rejection of the validity of historical study is like saying that, because human beings are mortal, the medical profession should be abolished.  I suspect many post-modernists have visited a doctor (although, in many cases, I wish they hadn’t).

During a discussion at this year’s Fourth Street, someone mentioned that, in the arts and sciences, post-modernism was most associated with, among other things, architecture.  Someone at the table where we were sitting remarked, “I don’t know about you, but I want the person who designed the building I’m in to believe there’s an objective world.”

 

ETA: After some discussion with jenphalian, it seems I need to clarify something.  The word “narrative” is not, in fact, evil.  There are times it’s appropriate when discussing someone’s view of events and interpretation of facts.  But I will stand by my position that these times do not include efforts to understand politics, economics, or, really, anything beyond the personal level.

What’s Next for TV? I Hope Something Is

In 1981, Hill Street Blues went on the air, and the soap opera met the drama and nothing was the same again.  The difference was the story arc: TV dramas no longer automatically reset to zero at the end of an episode.  Now, in fact, I get impatient and annoyed any time I’m watching something that resets to zero–I expect, demand, that there is movement during the season.

But there are a few things that came along with this change.  One of the big ones is the romance tease–will these two characters become involved?  How long can we stretch it before we give you an answer?  Sometimes it is timed well (I think Burn Notice did a good job with that).  Sometimes, not so much.  I rather like Castle, but by the end of the, I don’t, 90th season where the characters failed to get together, I found myself rolling my eyes and saying, “Oh, come on.”

Additionally, when it does happen, there is a fear among the writing staff that so much dramatic tension will be lost that you can actually see the writers straining to invent a problem between the characters  (The West Wing Season 5,  is an especially egregious example, along with the current season of Burn Notice).  Joss Whedon, probably the best writer/show runner working in US Television today, had this problem all through Buffy,and Angel.    Much as I loved the shows, it got irritating–even the love among secondary characters had to be prevented at all costs, for fear of losing dramatic tension; as if romance were the only place tension could come from.  Willow and Oz?   Xander walks out on his wedding day?  Tara gets shot? Oh, come on.  (Firefly didn’t have this problem, though I can’t help but wonder what would have happened if it had continued). Now, me, I love the “Thin Man” movies–a well adjusted couple solves crime while enjoying booze and repartee and the relationship between them is never an issue.   But you can’t do that on TV, because . . .well, let’s look at that.

There is no end.

In a book, you get to the end, you get closure, you get the satisfaction of turning the last page with your life a little changed, with a sense of resolution and satisfaction.  But TV is episodic, like an open-ended series.  There has to be dramatic tension.  There doesn’t have to be romance, but, at least in the opinion of the writers, if there is, it must always be threatening or threatened.  Because if you lose tension, you lose the viewer, then you lose the series, then you lose a whole lot of money (if you’re the writer, you don’t lose that much money, but you do lose your job).

I am not saying that romances may never be threatened or torn apart; anyone who knows my books knows I don’t believe that.  But any problems between characters needs to come from within, from the story, from the characters.  It needs, if you will, to be organic. The feeling that it was artificially introduced is just irritating, and makes us think about the writing at a moment when we should be lost in the story.

It isn’t just romance, of course.  That’s the most obvious, but, well, you’ve created the character arc, now you must live with it; characters cannot reach a true resolution, or they’re done.  In life, people do reach resolutions; while change never entirely stops, growth happens, and a new being is established, and the person moves on.  This can’t be done in open-ended episodic television.

We all know what the solution is: just like a series, you write toward a resolution and then stop; this frees you up artistically to concentrate on making it good.  Or maybe you close each season with a satisfying resolution in case you don’t get renewed.  Leverage and The Wire are stunning examples of doing it right.  But most TV can’t or won’t do that, so, however good it is, at some point the viewer finds himself rolling his eyes and saying, “Oh, come on.”

Maybe this is inevitable.  Where money is the thing that drives art, there may be no way around it.  But, until Steven Bochco came in in 1981, we all just figured that character growth in episodic TV was impossible.  So I wonder if something will change.  I wonder if some genius will come up with something.  Maybe a show in which characters vanish and are replaced?  More likely something that hasn’t occurred to me.  But there is just enough TV doing it right, that I can’t help but hope someone comes up with something.

 

 

When Is A “Quickie” Okay?

I’m in Austin, Texas now, and today I drove by a place on Lamar called “Quickie Tattoo.”  I was thinking how, if I wanted a tattoo, “quickie” wouldn’t be the first thing that attracted me.  This, in turn, made me consider when it is okay to have a “quickie” (in the non-sexual sense).

The first thing that sprang to mind is: If some author happened to be hanging around somewhere online and I could shoot him a quickie question, why, that would be fine.

By pure coincidence, I’ll be doing an AMA (Ask Me Anything) on Reddit one week from today.  I’ll be fielding questions about everything except for stuff I don’t know anything about.  Don’t ask me those things.  Anything else is fine.

The exact URL will be posted here and tweeted the morning the 17th, and you can start sending in questions then.

And I’ll have an announcement regarding The Incrementalists and why I love my publisher like, uh, like something that loves something a lot.  I won’t spend a lot of time on the announcement, though.  It’ll just be kind of a quickie.

 

Women are Ruining Science Fiction

Jen and I are in Austin, being graciously hosted by Scott and Skyler and Egan White. It’s a lovely time, with much good conversation, and pleasantness all around. Or, rather, it was, until a couple of days ago, when I woke up early and came downstairs unexpectedly. Because I was wearing slippers, no one heard me. And there were Jen and Skyler, their heads together, over a pile of books.

Jen: And, seriously, Sandworms? There is, like, no way that desert ecosystem could support such a lifeform. Plus, they’re icky. I think fuzzy kittens would be better.

Skyler: No, puppies! Sandpuppies!! You write that part. I just crossed out this whole section about the Emperor’s soldiers, because the uniforms? Boring! And it totally bounces me out of a story when a militarized political structure doesn’t revolve around elaborate hats with plumes and brocade.

Jen: And insignia.

Skyler: Exactly! Do we even know how this army symbolizes rank and status in color? I’m going to replace the whole battalion with one super-powerful alpha-guy with back tattoos.

Jen: Remember, it’s the desert though, so if he’s shirtless and obviously…

Skyler: Obviously. Shirtless, but maybe with vambraces.

Jen: Okay, but it’s the desert so we’ll have to make sure there’s some kind of sunscreen or his skin, you know.

Skyler: We’ll need to protect it from burning and from the scouring effects of the sand. We could use magic! There wasn’t enough magic anyway.

Jen: I know, right?! But don’t take too much time; the publisher needs it by next month if he’s going to replace all the copies of the old Dune on time.

Skyler: It’ll be done. But what about this one?

Jen: Oh, that’s Doc Smith. Nothing but space battles. Ugh. Let’s take out all the battles and replace them with fancy dress balls.

Skyler: I’ve always thought dancing reveals more about character than boring space battles anyway. What kind of costumes do they have? Do they move with the body or constrict it? Are the dances partnered or not? Foot or hip-driven?

Jen: Oooh, yeah. You do those. And we’re going to need lots more description of the Lensmen. Because, I mean, hello? A lens? That’s an accessory! It isn’t easy to build your whole wardrobe around one accessory.

Skyler: Right. It has to really pop, but also tie the whole ensemble together. I’m having a lot of trouble with The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, because there is so much boring stuff about living on the Moon, and it all has to be replaced, but I like the bit about the guy-harems. We could just get rid of the rock throwing nonsense and concentrate on the relationships. How do they feel about the different men? What do they talk about? And I like Wyoh, and Heinlein does say she’s cute, but we need way more description and gossip, so there’s plenty that can go there….oh, good morning, Steve. We were just having tea. Did you sleep well??

They shoved issues of Cosmo over the pile of books, but it was too late; I’d seen what I’d seen and heard what I’d heard. Shaken, terrified, I crept back to bed to nightmares about killer robots in lipstick.

 

Random, disorganized, scattershot thoughts on Cook’s post

I’m talking about this post.  And, yeah, my blog post makes no pretense of being organized or coming to any conclusion.

1. I think I need a new category tag that goes, “I’m not a feminist, but…”

2. Just because a bunch of people all get upset about something, doesn’t necessarily mean they’re wrong.

3. In his post, giving examples of pure SF writers, he starts with this: “Issac Asimov, Theodore Sturgeon, Arthur C. Clarke, Robert A. Heinlein to name but four…”  Um, excuse me.  Theodore Sturgeon?  Is there a different Theodore Sturgeon than the one who put human love and sexuality at the center of more stories than I’ll live to write?  Because surely he can’t mean that Theodore Sturgeon as an example of writers who avoided romance.  Am I missing something?

4. I DO agree with him about false advertising, however. I mean, when I pick up a book that claims to be well written, and, in fact, it turns out to suck galactic moose, I get really annoyed.

5. Book of the New Sun, fantasy or science fiction:  Apparently it’s fantasy, on account of the failure of the Earth to wobble properly.  Well, glad we’ve got that settled.  Let’s not talk about Doc Smith, all right?  Next up will be Lord of Light.

6. I really am uncomfortable when I find myself on the same side as so many people I so vehemently disagree with on so many issues.  It’s like when I say something on a panel and the audience applauds–it makes me think I’m taking the easy way out.  I don’t have a pathological need to be in a minority, but not being in the minority makes me twitchy, and I have to wonder if I’m letting myself fall into groupthink.  But then I remind myself that I agree with Republicans on some things–like a passionate hatred for Roosevelt (in my case, because he saved Capitalism), so I guess it’s all right.  And, you know, see point 2 above.

7. What kicks it over the edge for me is the phrase, ” the attention to detail that only women would find attractive: balls, courts, military dress, palace intrigues, gossiping, and whispering in the corridors.”  There is something so utterly, well, EWWWWW about that, that as an admirer of Bujold, I am just unable to not say something.  So I’m saying something.  Here’s what I’m saying: EWWWWWWW.

Okay, that’s all for now.  More later on how women are ruining science fiction.