Words    Words    Words

So, after I was convinced that reviewers putting bound galleys up for sale wasn’t the dastardly act I’d thought it was (thanks, Patrick), the next obvious step was to do it myself.  The ebay auction can be found here.

I’ve been re-reading Trotsky’s three volume History of the Russian Revolution. In chapter IV and chapter VI he gets into the personality of the Czar and the Czarina in a discussion of how much of the personality of a leader is accidental, and how much is determined by circumstances: in particular, the circumstances of the leader of a class doomed to extinction. In this context, he makes some comparisons of the traits of Czar Nicholas II, Louis XVI, and Charles I, as well as of their respective wives. The similarities are striking.

No doubt, those who consider personality to be supra-historical will conclude that it was exactly these “accidental” characteristics that caused the fall of the monarchy in each case; I’ll leave that for the discussion, or for someone else. What I want to mention are some of the specifics.

In brief: A complete disconnection from their subjects, a general apathy, a tendency to surround themselves by mediocirty combined with a contempt for anyone competent. In all three cases, there are reports of light-mindedness, and indecision; of being easily swayed by those mediocrates (I just made that word up) with whom they associated. “Tranquility and ‘gaiety’ in difficult moments…deprived of imagination and creative force…envious hostility toward everything gifted and significant…lacking firmness of character…a passive, patient, but vindictive treachery…” And in the case of all three wives, an even deeper isolation from the masses, and a love of the trappings of power. “…scorned the people, could not endure the thought of concessions…”

Okay, so, here’s the thing: We aren’t going to know until the exposes begin to appear after his presidency is over, but insofar as we can know, do these things strike anyone as familiar? No, Bush’s wife never said, “Let them eat cake,”* but his mother made an awfully similar sounding comment about the Louisiana refugees in Texas after Katrina. Look at some of the hints of Bush’s personality that leak out occasionally, and tell me if they don’t seem terribly familiar.

*Yes, I know Marie Antoinette never actually said that. The point is, the story spread because in every-one’s perception at the time, saying that was exactly in character for her.

It was either this or a long post on the materialist interpretation of human personality as related to the leaders of classes doomed to extinction.  Aren’t you glad it’s this?

He was big, looked to be between 45-50, had a typical Texas drawl and a rodeo belt buckle.  He was in Reesa’s store buying a tatoo for his wife, and I was hanging around and keeping Reesa company.  He looked at me as I walked in and said, “Do I know you from somewhere?”  “Can’t think where,” I said.  “You look familiar.  Are you an actor?”  “No, but I’m told I look a bit like Alan Rickman.”  “Maybe that’s it.”  He didn’t seem convinced.

I didn’t ask if he read sf, or read at all.  He just wasn’t the type.

After about half an hour, I got really disgusted with myself for believing there was a “type” who read, and thinking that a Texas drawl and a rodeo belt buckle meant he didn’t read.  I went back out.  “Uh, do you read?”  “All the time.”  “Science fiction and fantasy?”  “Mostly science fiction.  I thrive on it.”  “Oh.  Uh, I’m sorry.  You may have been me on the back cover a book.”  “Oh yeah?  What have you written.”  “Jhereg?”  “No.”  “To Reign in Hell?”  “No.”  “Dzur?”  “Damn!  You wrote Dzur?  I’ve got that!  It’s on my stack…”

So, yeah, anyway, I apologized for prejudging him, and he was very gracious about it, and we talked about favorite writers for a while.  Cool guy, Texas drawl and rodeo belt buckle and all.

Let this be a lesson to me.

This is the slow time–I’m waiting on a royalty check, and the on-publication money for Gigolo, and the bankruptcy to be resolved.  Meanwhile, Reesa’s store is going through the slow months while the college is out.  This produces what capitalists call a “cash-flow problem.”

So, we’re looking for someone who wants to invest 10 to 15k in her business, to make up for the slow months and to prepare for the store’s 10th Anniversary sales and specials.  The loan repayments would start this time next year; in exchange for the delay, she’s offering a good interest rate.  If this is going to happen, it needs to happen pretty fast (before my car gets repossessed, for example).  For those who care, I’ll add that not having my car repossessed and having a roof over my head will result in the current project (Iorich, or, Your Itch) being finished rather, ah, sooner than otherwise.

If you think you might be able and willing to make this investment, write to me (see my web site for email address) or the address on the store site for more details.

…to everyone on this day of international working class solidarity.

On April 29 (coincidentally my 30th birthday), Albert Hofmann died at 102, his age a testament to the preservative action of LSD on the human body. I want to take a moment to honor him for his contribution to humanity (including one of the most famous bicycle rides ever). If you are unfamiliar with this great psychedelic pioneer, perhaps you’d like to read more about him? Happily for psychonauts, much of his writing is available online, including his classic book LSD: My Problem Child. He will be missed here on earth, but the great teacher he gave us lives on.

Image via Erowid

Argh! I just found probably the twentieth writing advice site in recent reading that states, in plain unambiguous language, “don’t write a story with a cast of thousands”. These sites may vary on nearly every other advice point, but on this one maxim they all seem firmly in agreement.

Fine, I hear that. But when you already do have an ensemble cast story, then what? I want to see the lists of writing tips and suggestions for how to pull off the great ideas, forward-moving plot, *and* metric ton of characters as well as, oh, say, Kim Stanley Robinson. Or John Crowley’s Little, Big. Or Steven Brust’s Khaavren Romances. Or heck, what about Dumas? Tolstoy? Dostoyevsky? (You’re welcome to add your own.)

So don’t tell me I shouldn’t do it, unless you’re also going to explain why, since I can see examples of it in any bookstore I peruse. And when you’re finished telling me why I shouldn’t, then tell me how to hit it home anyway.

Note the capital “L.” I mean those who support the Libertarian Party, or Randites, or “Rational Anarchists” ala Heinlein, or, as Patrick says, those who want to sell the streets and privatize meat inspection.

This isn’t an effort at argument (though no doubt one will ensue), but a request for information. I’m wondering what the canonical answer is to the charge that without state control, nothing would prevent child labor, and similar abuses. It’s an obvious enough question that I’m sure it’s come up. If someone could run it down for me I’d appreciate it. Thanks.

So I was reading the latest article I’ve found in the “vat-grown meat” debate, (found over at the excellent Futurismic blog) and I just can’t keep quiet on the subject any longer. The article discusses a proposed solution to future meat protein production and consumption that involves, instead of growing meat in vats in labs–which is apparently an icky concept to some–that we genetically create “more efficient organisms that generate muscle tissue with the properties we want” by “genetically paring away the less commercially viable bits, like the brain”.

Most of you are probably having an atavistic reaction to the visualization of this concept every bit as icky as some people find vat meat, but no worries, the words will still be here for you to read when you recover. For the few left now who are less easily squicked and interested in the argument, read on.

All due respect to the scientist writing the proposal, but they are obviously not familiar with animal science or the production end of meat theory. The very first counter-argument that leaps to mind–to rebut the idea that brainless grazing cattle are superior either physically or psychologically to meat grown in a lab tube–involves the ratio of pounds consumed per pound of gain. One would hope that the scientists would work on improving that ratio while they’re busy deprogramming the brain stem, but I don’t see anyone in these articles even giving a nod to the issue.

Put simply, a cow takes 6-8 pounds of feed, on average, to put on one “commercially viable” pound of muscle tissue. (Pigs 4-6:1, Turkey 2-4:1, Catfish 1.1:1 are other examples I recall, hopefully correctly, from my classes a decade ago.) The brain is an energy-draining organ, so sure, removing the brain is bound to improve the ratio to some extent. But on the levels that we need to be considering if we are to achieve long-term, sustainable, non-scarcity food production, it seems to me that the brainless cow model overeats quickly.

Scientists are much more likely to be able to engineer a catfish-level efficiency of pounds consumed vs. pounds gained with a variety of tissue type and texture if they can control the systems directly in the lab. A lab set-up could easily have one industrial-sized set of heart and lungs and other maintenance systems keeping large numbers of meat-vats (10?25?50? more?) churning out hundreds of pounds of consumable muscle tissue on a regular time schedule. Though vat meat is in the beginning stages of development now, and the most differentiated tissue available to date resembles the consistency of ground chuck, other research is being directed toward developing the ability to grow specific cuts of meat in quantity in the lab. The potential resources saved by removing the animal from the meat production process add up to large quantities quickly.

Vat-grown meat isn’t icky, squicky, or gross; it’s energy efficient, ethical, and ecologically friendly. Sure, the next couple of generations will have their “real meat” superiority complex, and there will exist for some time to come a specialty market for “organically grown meat” at specialty prices. But for everyday tastiness, convenience, and responsible social footprint issues, well vat me, baby! I’ll take my burger as a vurger no problem.