One Of Those Odd Coincidences

     A fanciful movie of a few years back, The Core, contained some of the most striking visual imagery I’d seen incorporated into an SF flick in some time. Have a gander at this scene in a “gem cave:” a postulated space about 700 miles below the Earth’s surface, filled partly by jagged nickel-iron crystals and protected by a cobalt shell from the pressure of the magma around it:

     I was impressed by the imagery, and found myself wondering where the director had come up with the idea. Then, just a few days ago, I stumbled upon this electron micrograph of the surface of a kidney stone:

     Quite a resemblance, eh?

Charlotte, NC RNC - Local Reporting

 I won't actually be IN the Charlotte area this upcoming week - family business takes precedence.

However, I will be monitoring the news, talking to people, and generally keeping an eye on the situation.

For now, it seems that the 'festivities' have started early. The demonstrators are out, and engaging in their usual polite and congenial interactions with the po-po.

I kid, I kid - the demonstrators have already attacked police not too far from the Convention Center.

Now, I've had the advantage of attending multiple events at the Charlotte site; it's located right downtown, near the south side of the commercial/shopping area. It's a typical modern center - multiple glass doors on different sides of the building. It works, because the place is set up to funnel compliant convention-goers through one entrance, with guards to monitor the attendees, register them, several businesses catering to the crowd nearby (snacks, Starbucks). Once past the guards, registration tables are generally set up just past the shops, and, from there, you move either down very spacious hallways, or take escalators/elevators to meeting rooms.

Large ballrooms are on each floor, followed by hallways leading to multiple meeting rooms, which can be expanded or contracted by folding walls. There are a few places to eat inside; most people leave the premises to find nearby restaurants.

The area just south of the center is freeway, a few businesses (not generally catering to the casual shopper), and some vacant lots. The highway construction has made it kind of a wasteland for pedestrians.

So. The center is relatively defensible (other than those glass doors, which will likely be shattered early). The biggest problem will be if conventioneers want to leave during the day.

I'm going to keep this up for the next week, and add to it, as necessary. I'll put the new stuff at the top.

A Way to Launch a Bigger Fleet, While Limiting Costs

 With the increased tension in the Pacific, it would seem a good idea to explore ways to improve our Navy's performance, while keeping an eye on costs.

This suggestion seems to be well thought out. Not a military person myself, so can't speak to the feasibility of the strategy, nor discuss the potential drawbacks. If you have that expertise, please comment.

Our New Patriotic Duty - According to Our New Masters

Guys, I enjoy conspiracy theories in movies. They're fun, if more than a little unlikely.

But, IRL (in Real Life), I'm skeptical of the ability of a group of people to keep secrets. Hell, the Klown Korps of the Obama 'Resisters' should be used as a classic example of just how poorly most people keep a lid on the conspiracy plot. I mean, they stood around in corners, snickering about how smart they were compared to us Deplorables.

Then, the Dumba$$es put their plans into TEXT MESSAGES, for crying out loud. And wrote their plans down. And, CC'd others in the loop. They bragged about it, left a trail a blind man could follow, and generally had all the subtlety of The 3 Stooges.

That being said, it's pretty clear that the New Vision of Americans is a conception that only has them living as obedient Serfs. At best. They will have to speak only as permitted, write only approved messages, turn over custody of their kids to the state, and be permitted to move around in public only if covered with masks.

The price of their freedom is to give in to forced vaccinations. No religious or other exemptions allowed.

I'm generally in favor of the major immunizations - MMR, DTP, and polio. Heck, smallpox, should it make a comeback.

But, not Hepatitis, HPV, or a whole lot of other vaccines that are currently on the recommended list. And, definitely not a vaccine that was rushed to the market without sufficient time to thoroughly test it. And, for an illness that shows few symptoms for most people, or very transitory ones.

If the parents WANT them, they can have them. It's their kid. Or, their own self.

If they are dark-skinned (Michelle Obama, not necessarily Barack), they should be informed that they are likely at higher risk. Dark skin does not absorb vitamin D as readily as lighter skin. Many BIPOC are deficient in vitamin D, if they do not live in very sunny climates. For once, my Irish complexion is a blessing, not a curse.

Just don't push the shots on unwilling families. No matter what their presumed risk.

Medically fragile kids? Probably a good idea to get all vaccines.

Most kids, with healthy immune systems? Probably not necessary. May even inhibit the development of a healthy immune system.

I won't be getting it. Not soon, not ever. I will oppose the requirements with every bit of strength I have. In my lifetime, I've had a lot of illnesses - measles, mumps, chicken pox, German measles/rubella, regular yearly flu, Hong Kong flu. Colds, pneumonia, etc. My system beat them all off with few problems or lasting effects. Except to make me stronger and more resistant.

The beauty of people actually contracting easily spread diseases is that their immune system will get long-lasting protection against another bout of the same disease (and, sometimes, similar illnesses). Often that protection lasts a lifetime.

Not with immunizations. Booster shots are necessary, repeated again and again for life. It's both expensive, and often forgotten after childhood.

Do Americans really want to carry around a paper proving that they have been deemed safe by government to live a normal life?

Do they really want to hear, "Papers, please"? Do they want other's fears to control whether they will be PERMITTED to work, go to school, move around in public?

The original Americans would be ashamed to see what a Free People has been reduced to. It does require an overly suspicious person to see a conspiracy to turn Citizens into Subjects.

UPDATE: I just found this on Scientific American - it is chilling.

One Great Song

     There are musicians who rise to greatness exactly once...perhaps for a few minutes only, and never again. Most know of some of them. The “one-hit wonders” so often discussed in amused tones are usually well known, as is their hit. But there are others whose moment of glory isn’t generally recognized, They remain permanently obscure. Even their one shining moment is known only to a lucky few.

     I think this will become a series, if galloping senility will graciously permit. For today’s offering in this vein, I present Luka Bloom’s “Dreams in America:”

     Please pardon me a moment of maudlin reminiscence. And to Mikal Trimm, wherever you may be: Thank you for this. I hope you’re well and happy.

Who's Confused? Biden, or Trump?

 Well, I know who I think has fallen prey to mankind's unkindest medical condition, and it's NOT Trump.

But, what I find interesting is that for Biden's supporters, the defense seems to be:

• There is nothing wrong with his thinking - and, after a virtual appearance at the DNC, his supporters are high-fiving his apparent coherence (although I, not a person who bets, would place a large sum - Okay, $5 - on the video having been spliced to remove the errors and incoherence, and the video manipulated to make it seem to be a seamless, one-take performance).
• ALL old guys demonstrate that halting speech and off-topic rambling.
• Trump does it, too, and WORSE (well, no, he doesn't).
• Trump is only 3 years younger, so that PROVES that Joe is fine (that does not even approach logical thought).

They don't release a rather simple test (Trump said it was laughably simple). My Dad was in a hospital a few years ago, after a diabetic episode. He'd been a little confused when he arrived, so naturally, when the doctor returned, he was anxious to find out whether he'd come back to functioning mentally.

Unfortunately, what my dad said didn't reassure him.

My dad was just waking up when I arrived. He saw me and said, "Hey, I just got a new laptop with X RAM and Intel inside." We talked the tech specs, slung the lingo around for a while, so the doctor began asking him questions.

The problem was, some of the questions he asked puzzled my father.

What day is it?

Do you know where you are?

Both questions were answered appropriately. Then, the doctor threw him for a loop:

Am I a policeman?

My poor father, hearing that, didn't quite know what to say for a moment. He then answered, "I thought you said you were a doctor?"

The doctor began writing down, patient is still confused and making no sense. Well, I snuck a look at what he'd written, and took him aside to explain, that, despite his fears, the 'gibberish' he was babbling about was perfectly lucid talk about his computer hobby.

“Goes To Credibility”

     “A thousand truths do not mark a man as a truth-teller, but a single lie marks him as a damned liar....Lying to other people is your business, but I tell you this: once a man gets a reputation as a liar, he might as well be struck dumb, for people do not listen to the wind.” -- Robert A. Heinlein

     “What do we really know of the time of our greatness? A few names of worlds and heroes, a ragtag of facts we’ve tried to patch into a history. The Shing law forbids killing, but they killed knowledge, they burned books, and what may be worse, they falsified what was left. They slipped in the Lie, as always.” -- Ursula LeGuin

     There is no need in human life so great as that men should trust one another and should trust their government, should believe in promises, and should keep promises in order that future promises may be believed in and in order that confident cooperation may be possible. Good faith -- personal, national, and international -- is the first prerequisite of decent living, of the steady going on of industry, of governmental financial strength, and of international peace. -- Benjamin M. Anderson

     “Never believe anything political until it is officially denied.” – old adage

     (I figured I’d get the quotes out of the way first, for the convenience of those who, like Ralph Waldo Emerson, “hate quotations.”)

     Now and then, if you watch the occasional “courtroom drama,” you’ll hear an exchange between a judge and a cross-examining attorney in which the attorney defends the legitimacy of a question he’s just asked by saying that it “goes to credibility.” There’s verisimilitude in such scenes, as whether a witness has a history of untrustworthy statements should affect what the jury makes of his testimony.

     Credibility in statement is one aspect of the condition we call trust. Can Smith trust Jones? What if Jones is known to have been dishonest in his past statements? If that’s the case, Smith would be well advised not to regard Jones as a source of reliable information. Seems pretty simple, doesn’t it?

     Credibility is a characteristic we demand from institutions as well as from individuals. Indeed, it might be the most important trait an institution can have...especially a political one:

     If an evildoer should desire the destruction of an institution, probably his most profitable course is to attack its credibility. If he is successful in damaging it thus, thereafter nothing else about it will matter. Whatever assets it still possesses will steadily dribble away. But what method is most likely to avail him?

     Why, infiltrating and corrupting its communications, of course!

     How much of what any level of government emits today is believed by Us the People? How badly have politicians’ prior lies, distortions, and omissions of context undermined their credibility, and by implication the credibility of all government representations? Indeed, how much confidence can we repose in the simplest of political mechanisms: the validation and counting of our votes?

     The question is becoming ever more critical as we approach November 3.

---

     We’ve had a number of recent elections whose results were deemed questionable for some reason. Vote fraud, illegal voting, voter intimidation, and other felonies have had their place. On occasion, the reason was simple incredulity: “How could he have beaten her?” The cumulative effect of such questioning has been to undermine the reliability of election results generally.

     The Left has shrieked mightily over election results that disfavored their preferred candidates. The Right has occasionally protested a result that struck us as corrupt – the election of Al Franken as a U.S. Senator, for example – but we haven’t raised nearly the stink the Left has produced, for a simple reason: We want Americans to trust the results of American elections. The alternative to transitions of authority by ballot is the removal of incumbents by bullet: violent coups, as in various less-than-respectable nations.

     The Left has no great love for elections. Too many of the “wrong” Americans are voting. The upcoming contest on November 3 is likely to disappoint the Left yet again. That makes it the Left’s goal to discredit the result in advance, by spreading a cloud of uncertainty and distrust over the election procedures regardless of what they may prove to be.

     Wes Rhinier lays out the stakes in his most recent essay:

     I’m convinced there will be no consensus regarding an agreed upon presidential victor on November 4th, or possibly weeks after, or possibly ever. The amount of incompetence in handling mail-in-ballots by the USPO and those tasked with counting them will be off the charts. The level of fraud in attempting to win this election will be on a level never seen before, making Daley’s shenanigans to get Kennedy the necessary votes in 1960 seem like child’s play.

     When a system is specifically designed in such a way that cheating is easy, there will be a significant amount of cheating. The stakes in this election have never been higher. The future path of the nation will be set in motion by the outcome of this election. But the truth is, no matter the outcome, the losers will not accept the verdict. That is when this Fourth Turning moves into its truly violent stage, making these urban riots in Democrat stronghold cities seem like minor league play acting.

     If Wes’s prediction doesn’t send a chill down your spine, check your pulse: you may have died and not noticed.

---

     There is no Last Graf. While I believe that President Trump would win an honest election handily, I can’t imagine a way to ensure the credibility of the election to come. Should he be declared the winner, the Left will accelerate the existing violence in a last-ditch attempt to cow us into submitting to its agenda. I expect only discord and feel only fear. That’s all that’s left after trust is gone.

     Have a nice day.

Judy Shelton, Public Enemy # 1.

. . . [Judy Shelton, nominee to a vacancy on the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,] is 100 percent correct when she questions why a dozen people (the Federal Reserve Board of Governors) should set the prices of capital (interest rates) any more than they should set the price of cars, houses, or bubble gum.

Markets can do that and do it better - as they did before there even was a Federal Reserve system. Shelton opposes policies that would be more at home in a centrally planned economy.^[1]

Price setting is one of the many Achilles heels of centrally-planned economies. How exactly does one "rationally" determine the price of a pencil or a ham sandwich? How does the technocrat factor into the cost of a pencil the costs of mining the graphite and what exactly should graphite cost? How exactly does a wise man person factor the cost of feed for pigs and the farmer's daughter's tuition and car insurance into the price of the sandwich?

It's an impossible task to set prices from the Olympian heights, even with a spreadsheet, and the true cost of mispricing -- which happens always, without fail, and forever -- is bad price signals to producers and consequent inefficient resource usage and malinvestment. Malinvestment and dangerous use of retirement savings being but two of the plagues coursing through our economy as we speak.

So Shelton's point is an excellent one, definitely in the "emperor's new clothes" category. Why should any narrow elite make decisions for the hundreds of millions of ordinary citizens?

That's kind of the question of the hour, come down to it. What happened to representative government and just who are these swine who dare to determine our future and the future of our country?

Go Judy Shelton!

The Federal Reserve run by the proper sort of people.

Notes
^[1] "'Extreme, Ill-Considered Views' - 38 Fed Alum Urge Senate To Reject Judy Shelton Nomination." By Tyler Durden, ZeroHedge, 8/20/20 (emphasis removed).

Hunkering Down

 Like Francis, I'm not inclined to write very long blog posts just now - mostly shorter ones. Some of this is that I'm just about caught up on news for now.

Life is short, and my patience for stupidity is shorter. I am on hiatus from most social media (occasional posts, don't check for messages). I have few responsibilities right now, as I am sleeping on my brother's couch at present, as he has had health issues, and needed some assistance (and company, for a limited time). Many parts of my life have, therefore, been put on hold for now.

The DNC was largely predictable so far - I've very little doubt that Biden will deliver much of a "live" speech - it will be pre-recorded and HEAVILY edited to remove his fumbling thinking. 

The Left keeps creating "scandals" and acting "shocked" at Trump's actions, Tweets, and mis-construed sound bites. Every bit of news consists of: We (the Left) hate Trump, who is the Worst Evah, and EVERYTHING he does is wrong. And, Evil.

The details don't matter. The truth is unimportant. What matters is splattering mud on the wall, and hoping that enough of it sticks that is sways enough votes. What is enough? Sufficient to get within cheating distance of winning.

Really, it's like watching a woman whose husband has had all he can take of her Sh*t, who keeps calling the cops with specious accusations, browbeating her lawyer into filing desperate attempts to slow up or stop the process, and bad-mouthing her soon-to-be ex with anyone who she can force to listen to her b*tching. No act is too low, she is not bound by any moral restrictions, and - if it would cause him pain, she would slit her own throat without hesitation.

Of course, she would MUCH rather he die, but...

So, I'm checking in only once or twice a day on news. I've picked up a crocheting project. I'm spending time reading books I've had on the TBR list (To Be Read), and I'm enjoying life in the slow lane.

1984, Over and Over and Over Again

 At the time I first read it (high school, late 1960s), just about every kid also was assigned the book (the less academically inclined might be given Animal Farm instead - it's just shorter, and with a simpler vocabulary).

I had come to think of this as a universal experience.

The New Neo's post make me reconsider that assumption. Either some kids didn't read it, or it made no impression on them.

I'm curious - what books do you remember? I added a couple of books that might lead readers to be aware of the problems of Leftist societies, and put together a Google Forms quiz.

The anonymous quiz is here.

Masks that Work, and Those that Don't

 It turns out that a common form of covering your face, the Gaiters, may be completely worthless. And, I'm guessing, so might the scarves worn by many women.

The AntiFa "peaceful protesters" seem to be fond of the Gaiter style (I'm SURE it has nothing to do with its effectiveness in concealing identifiable facial features).

If you are returning to work, interacting indoors, or your child is returning to school, consider watching the above video. It had one tip I'd not heard of - light a candle, hold it a few inches away, and try to blow it out.

If you can't, the mask is effective. If it goes out, choose another mask.

Objectives And Constraints, 2020 Edition

     I’ve been trying to minimize my rantings on political and current-events subjects recently. I’ve needed to distance myself from them, lest they swallow me whole. If you come here for such fulminations, I can only hope that the offerings from Linda and the Colonel have satisfied you. I’ve had to refocus on other topics, probably temporarily, for the sake of my sanity.

     A couple of things from my morning reading have me thinking about a peculiar coin, one that philosophers will recognize at once. On one face of that coin is engraved:

Objectives And Methods

     ...while the reverse face is inscribed with:

Moral And Ethical Constraints

     The rim of this coin is milled as is the rim of a quarter, such that one cannot help but feel the ridges. Indeed, you might want to keep a quarter in your hand as you read this. Run your thumb along the edge from time to time. It will remind you that there can never be a coin with only one face.

---

     This morning, our favorite Bookworm declaims thus:

     Andrew Klavan often talks about the fact that the Republican reverence for the free market beginning in the 1980s had within it the seeds of the Republicans’ downfall because they forgot that capitalism works only when tempered with morality.

     Indeed! Bravo! Unfortunately, Bookworm immediately drives into the weeds:

     China is the ne plus ultra of capitalism without morality. (By the way, another word for what China is now is fascist. That’s what happens when you allow private ownership and a “free” market, but the government maintains complete control.)

     This distorts the meanings of its key words. “Capitalism” and “free market” are synonyms, though one has connotations the other does not. Fascism is not capitalist; it is socialist. In a fascist economy just as in an explicitly socialist one, production and distribution are totally dictated by the State, with a few meaningless property deeds for camouflage and decoration. (Look up the meaning of the German word Betriebsführer and its significance in the Third Reich if this eludes you.)

     However, it’s the first of the two cited passages that really caught my eye. The reason is a single, seemingly innocuous word: “works.”

     To say that something “works” – or doesn't – implies an objective to be pursued and a standard for evaluation, and such objectives and standards are seldom explicitly stated. Just now, for example, we have out-of-control riots, violence, and vandalism in several major cities, while local and state authorities alternate between wringing their hands and sitting on them. Yet I have no doubt that some persons are viewing that chaos and saying to one another “It's working.” That is: they believe it’s bringing them nearer to their objective.

     The objective being pursued, and the existence or nonexistence of moral and ethical constraints, are what really matter to the applicability of the word “works.”

---

     A people who commonly subscribe to the moral and ethical codes of the Judeo-Christian tradition will understand one another reasonably well when one of them says “this works” or “that won’t work.” They’ve agreed on the objective at issue and tacitly accept the same constraints. But if there are among them persons who don’t subscribe to that moral-ethical code, they can use the others’ fallacious assumption to work a great betrayal.

     For example: When the modern American welfare system was established in the early Sixties, it was sold to the public not as a way of life but as “a hand up” for those who became its beneficiaries. That is, it was represented as a way to reduce avoidable privation, particularly among minor children, while the beneficiaries “get back on their feet.” But the welfare system did become a way of life for a steadily expanding population of beneficiaries who remained dependent on the system lifelong. The percentage of persons who accepted welfare support and later became self-supporting was dwarfed by the percentage that remained on it permanently. So if the objective was “a hand up,” the programs failed. However, if the objective was to produce a steadily expanding population of dependents, the programs worked very well indeed.

     But decent people – that is, people who sincerely subscribe to the Judeo-Christian ethic – could not believe that anyone would have inducing helpless dependency in millions of others as his objective. It would be wrong, barely distant from mass enslavement. The idea that persons in government, whether elected, appointed, or Civil Service, would think it acceptable, much less desirable, baffled many good-hearted Americans.

     The objective pursued and the moral-ethical standard that constrained the pursuer clearly mattered. Run your thumb along your quarter’s edge and ponder awhile.

---

     The aim of the High is to remain where they are. -- George Orwell

     We’ve talked a lot about the political Establishment, here and elsewhere. Since the election of President Trump, that category of persons has chafed over being ejected en masse from federal power. Returning to their previous state of hegemony is their primary objective. They see Trump as the principal obstacle to that aim. Therefore, they seek to depose him, by any expedient means.

     The events of the four years behind us have made it plain that in that campaign, the Establishment recognizes no moral constraints of importance. They will lie, cheat, steal, betray the interests of the country, and possibly even arm America’s enemies if it will get them where they want to go. The revelations about what lies behind the “Russian collusion” hoax have made both their objective and their lack of moral scruple ever more obvious to decent Americans.

     Would these people ever admit openly to their objective? Doubtful. Would they ever admit to their lack of moral constraint? Really, now! They progress entirely because most Americans are good-hearted, naive believers in the good will of all their countrymen. They assume as a matter of course that we’re all decent sorts who want the same things and respect the same moral-ethical rules. It falls to us who see more clearly to make matters plain.

     Which brings me to this excellent piece from Sundance at The Last Refuge. In his exposition on Cold Anger, Sundance expresses our objective with maximum clarity and precision:

     You know why the entire apparatus is united against President Trump. You know why the corrupt Wall Street financial apparatus is united against President Trump. You know why every institutional department, every lobbyist, every K-Street dweller, every career legislative member, staffer, and the various downstream economic benefactors, including the corporate media, all of it – all the above, are united against Donald Trump.

     Donald Trump is an existential threat to the existence of a corrupt DC system we have exposed to his disinfecting sunlight. Donald Trump is the existential threat to every entity and institution who benefits from that corrupt and vile system.

     They too have nothing to lose; their desperation becomes visible within their apoplexy; and they’re damn sure displaying it.

     Do not look away.

     Throw aside the sense of discomfort and bear witness to the evil we oppose. Do not turn your eyes from the hatred focused in our direction. Stand firm amid the solace of our number and resolve to the task at hand.

     Leftists who oppose our efforts hold positions that are weak, push back against them. They rely on fear…. they relish misery and despair… do not give it to them. Let them stare into the Cold Anger furnace.

     Our constraint? It is the same as our objective: justice, nothing else. If the existing institutions will not grant us justice, we will make it for ourselves, with our own hands.

     We must.

Absolutely NO shutdown agenda.

Unh uhh.

[President of Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko] says he was offered a World Bank loan if he did a COVID lockdown.^[1]

This is lockdown garbage is a sick obsession. It is CLEAR that mitigating the effect of the COVID-19 virus is NOT the ONLY consideration. Saving countless national economies, jobs, and small businesses is now THE MAJOR task facing world governments. At this point, it's anything but clear that we can avoid economic disaster given all the other reckless, greasy spending, debt, monetary, and cronyism excesses. But, CLEARLY, enormous economic and social harm IS being engineered by this sick focus on lockdown, lockdown, lockdown.

A little perspective from the CDC leading causes of death for 2017 with my addition of today's U.S. COVID-19 deaths:

• Heart disease: 647,457
• Cancer: 599,108
• COVID-19: 173,798
• Accidents (unintentional injuries): 169,936
• Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 160,201
• Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 146,383
• Alzheimer’s disease: 121,404
• Diabetes: 83,564
• Influenza and pneumonia: 55,672
• Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,633
• Intentional self-harm (suicide): 47,173

Even if I divide the COVID-19 number above by 8 and multiply by 12 the result is 260,697 COVID-19 deaths, still roughly half of the death tolls for cancer and heart disease. Each year.

CLEARLY people without other serious health problems, not in nursing homes, and not elderly have a much reduced, if not nonexistent, risk of serious consequences from infection. And I say this as a man well into his 70s with, fortunately, no co-morbidities other than a serious alcohol problem. I can quit any time. I'm not eager to depart this vale of tears right now but still I don't expect there to be a vastly distorted official reaction to something that ISN'T the Spanish Flu.

Okay. CLEARLY hydroxychloroquine, zinc and azithromycin have considerable value in treating the virus infection in its early stages, just as it is equally clear that there is an underhanded, dishonest effort to demonize this treatment, not least by publishing critical studies that involve abnormally high doses that no one has recommended for the virus.

And, just as CLEAR, is the full-court press to censor and deplatform views not in line with the scum-sucking establishment lunatics.

And don't forget Angelo Codevilla's take on the elite agenda recorded for prosperity on the Intergalactic Source of Truth, one of your finer blogs.

Notes
^[1] "RUSSIAN FEDERATION SITREP 20 AUGUST 2020." By Patrick Armstrong, Sic Semper Tyrannis, 8/20/20.

Great Moments In Customer Service

Masseuse: “...and they all lived happily ever after.”
Customer: That is not what I meant by a happy ending!

     </rimshot>

Writer Reviewing Other Writer’s Books Experiences Great Consternation

     (Film at eleven!)

     Seriously, as a writer with nearly three decades of experience under my belt, it can be very difficult to assess another writer’s work in a fair and evenhanded manner. After all, most readers are not writers themselves – yea verily, even today – and are mainly interested in learning whether they would be likely to enjoy the book in question. If your review doesn’t give them a sense for that, it’s essentially pointless.

     But readers who write approach others’ fiction with a different perspective. Its essence is well expressed in this piece by Writing Observer:

     When a writer reads someone else’s work, unless they are one of the lucky few that can switch off that part of their brain at will, they are simultaneously analyzing the text flowing beneath their eyes. We can’t help it — like any other professional, we are constantly looking for help with our own efforts. What doesn’t work here, and how do I avoid it? What is a beautiful, shiny piece of prose, or scene, or entire chapter, and how do I make mine look so good?

     It’s an uncomfortable feeling — and sometimes a dangerous one. We can lose sight of the forest for the trees, people. We have to cultivate an ability to step back and look at the work as a whole — that is what makes a good (or bad) piece of work, not a few blemishes or a few shining passages. The whole work is what matters in the end...

     A writer who undertakes to review is obliged to remember that any writers who read his review will be heavily outnumbered by ordinary readers looking for a few hours’ entertainment. Any nitpicking he might express to himself about the book in question should be downplayed in favor of an emphasis on the book’s entertainment value.

     An example: Back when Tom Clancy was churning out the techno-thrillers, I purchased, read, and greatly enjoyed virtually all of them. Yet Clancy’s prose is a study in a wide variety of errors young writers are counseled to avoid. Some of those errors are serious: for example, ambiguity of viewpoint and head-hopping in mid-scene. Others are minor glitches of phrasing and style that a multitude of other writers – far less gifted than Clancy at crafting and narrating a compelling story – also commit. But the writer-who-reads and notices them can still be enthralled by the storytelling. If he chooses to review, he’s ethically obliged to keep that uppermost in mind.

     And so we come to my episode of consternation.

---

     I receive a daily email from Freebooksy that reports on the day’s free-eBook promotions. Now and then I pick up a book from that email. I last did so about a week ago: Emergence, by Liberty Speidel.

     The nitpicky, Uber-perfectionist lobe of my brain was in overdrive from the very first page. There were a lot of stylistic glitches. There was also a revelation that should have occurred but didn’t, as I would find out much later. Main character Darby was portrayed in a fashion that struck me as ambivalent: equally likely to strike a reader as sympathetic or unsympathetic. But the central premises are original, especially considering that the tale is part of the “superheroes” genre, and the plot moved me smartly along. So when I finished Emergence, I went on to Retaliation,the next book in the series.

     Well, the stylistic glitches didn’t trail off. If anything, they increased in frequency. Darby’s characterization continued to be jagged, not always effectively sympathetic. I also deemed one of Speidel’s “structural” choices to be dubious. But there was a sense of freshness about the story’s sociopolitical backdrop and its most important plot motifs. When I finished it, I went directly on to book three, Capitulation.

     I could go on in this vein through books three, four (Omission), and five (Escalation). There were more errors of the sort in the previous books, plus lots of loose ends, and at least one continuity error of note. Perhaps worst, main character Darby was ever more portrayed as headstrong, disrespectful of higher authority and heedless of others’ greater experience, and prone to acting without thinking or pondering the probable consequences – i.e., who struck me as a brat who should be sent to her room without her dinner or cell phone.

     By now you must have the idea. As much as the writer in me wanted to take Speidel across my knee and spank her soundly for her myriad errors of craft, she’d invented a setting of considerable originality, had made use of motifs that were either inherently original or original as employed, and had kept the stories moving forward at a good tempo. How to review the series?

     Great God in heaven! My writerly side kept wanting to chastise Speidel. But I’d read all five books, end to end, without pausing. To write a nitpicky, hypercritical review, as if I were critiquing my own fiction, would unfairly shortchange the entertainment value of the books. Yet not to mention the flaws at all would grate severely against the part of me that values craft and precision in writing.

---

     I’m still dithering. Perhaps the only place I’ll mention my consternation is right here. (Or at my fiction-promotion site, where this will be cross-posted.)

     I wrote some time ago about the importance of being reasonable in one’s expectations of an indie writer, especially a relatively inexperienced one. I still feel that way. So if and when I get around to actually posting a review of Speidel’s “Darby Shaw” series, I’ll have to rein in the impulse to harp on what I saw as failings of craft and emphasize the entertainment value the series offers. Ordinary Christian charity would dictate that course. For now, the above emission of steam should bring the pressure down to a manageable level.

Where Have the Weapons of the Left Come From?

 Check this piece on American Thinker out -  the writer questions the current location of all those guns and ammo that Obama's administration bought for various government agencies (NOT military units).

Here's the link.

Look for These Signs of Organization in the Next Riots

 Bookwormroom has done a tremendous service for the rest of us, by posting this information. I'd seen some info about these tactical 'tells', but it's nice to see it so detailed.

Here is the link.

Some ways the police can utilize this include use of scanners with frequency ranges close to the type of radio the AntiFa have, strategic use of paintballs to 'tag' the various leaders (perhaps different colors for different levels of operation?), and drone coverage (preferably small, and operating high enough or under concealment to enable them to keep an eye on the flow of the action, target individuals for arrest, and providing video evidence of their activities).

The Bookroom's Memes are Wicked!

 See for yourself.

Is COVID Nearly Over?

 The Democrats are sure HOPING not!

But, according to this guy, it is. He makes a very persuasive case for ending the lockdown.

The Dystopian Novels of the 60's Are Coming True

 "14 or Fight!" - a novel promoting the extension of the vote to young teens. Sloppily written, and, in the end, cautions about the lengths to which this could go, but...Yes, there are calls from Pelosi, among others, to extend the vote to 16-year olds.

Lord of the Flies - have you looked at the scenes from CHAD, CHOP, and other major cities?

And, a book that - at age 19, I did read, and found appealing. But, only until I moved away from my parent's house, and experienced what that life would be, should the hippies take over. After a relatively short time of cleaning up after people trashed the place, covering rent and utilities for the financially feckless, and missing sleep to listen to their stoned political blatherings, that got REAL stale.

That last book, about the wonderfulness of a totes cooperative and loving world, rendered so by the copious use of drugs, either consumed willing or by a "loving" friend who just KNOWS you would enjoy the experience, may be put into practice if this fool gets his way.

This is not going to strike the young as an invasion of personal autonomy; many of them were drugged without their permission, to render them compliant with school discipline. But, this extends a parental decision to government imposition.

Be warned!