Category: Uncategorized

Mailvox: “a fine book”

Some time ago, I got an email from a bestselling author, who shall remain nameless. Said author informed me that they had picked up two of the Selenoth shorts as free downloads from Amazon and found them to be more entertaining than expected. That was nice to hear, but the following review, which arrived in my email yesterday along with permission to post it here, was remarkably gracious and unexpectedly positive.

A Throne of Bones by Vox Day is not a novel for just anyone. The scope and ambition of the world and the numerous storylines would probably be overwhelming to the casual reader of fantasy fiction – and perhaps even those who enjoy the novels of George R.R. Martin or similar writers of massive fantasy tomes. At times, A Throne of Bones even forced me to mentally review my Roman and biblical history, and it stretched my vague memories of Latin to the limit.

I cannot say that I’m surprised that traditional publishing houses passed on this work. I imagine that many editors who looked at it were intimidated by it in terms of content and length. This is not an easy novel, and if one’s only background is a Bachelor’s degree in English, as an editor it would appear to be an impossible mountain to climb in terms of the required knowledge to do it justice. I very much found myself wondering what would have happened had it been published by a large house with a marketing campaign behind it.

As an editor myself, I would have felt compelled to take a run at it, and no doubt would have advised Vox Day to take a couple of different directions than he did, but the end result of his work cannot be denied: it’s a fine book and one to recommend to people who like their fantasy novels with genuine width and depth. All in all, A Throne of Bones offers an incredibly in-depth story, and a remarkable level of craftsmanship in the world building.

As an author, I’d suggest that old advice is good advice: don’t try this at home. Not very many writers have the ability to pull off something this ambitious, but Vox Day did. A Throne of Bones would be a career achievement any writer would be proud to call his own.

It’s been a surprisingly exciting ten months since Marcher Lord Hinterlands published A Throne of Bones. I’ve been formally barred from some Christian awards and nominated for others. I’ve been rejected by an international publishing house that loved the book because I’m too personally controversial. And I’m the first writer in history to be kicked out of the SFWA.

Even so, I can honestly say that I wouldn’t trade my literary career for any living author who isn’t named either a) Neal Stephenson or b) Umberto Eco.

Now, I’m not unaware of the gentle criticism implicit in the review, notwithstanding the kind words of praise. The book could certainly be better, and I am optimistic that the second book in the series will be, although no book I write is ever likely to be a masterwork of literary style. But the author, editor, and reviewer was dead-on. A Throne of Bones is not a book for everyone and it was never intended to be. I am simply pleased to know that it appears to have reached a few of its ideal readers and is appreciated for what it is.

An agnostic’s perspective

Brett Markham reviews The Irrational Atheist on Amazon:

I am not on either side of the atheist/religionist camp. I have enjoyed some of Dawkins’ work (such as The Blind Watchmaker) but personally I do not consider creationism and evolution to be mutually exclusive. Could not a deity, for example, create through evolution?

Likewise, I am keenly aware that on the sentience quotient scale (SQ), which is logarithmic, it is entirely possible for entities to exist that are as much more sentient than humans as humans are more sentient than rocks, meaning we could understand such entities about as well as rocks understand humans. And to such entities, our “science” would be as meaningful as the “science” that rocks formulate is meaningful to us. So the concept of deity falls, in my opinion, within the realm of theoretical possibility without contradicting science.

At the same time, the idea that some person’s interpretation of the meaning of an unverifiable deity’s words should regulate my choices seems disconnected from reality. I do not appreciate proselyte atheism (which seems more like an intolerant religion than science to me) any more than I appreciate someone informing me that his deity’s will is for me to burn in Hell. At the same time, I appreciate that it is difficult if not impossible to create self-referential moral codes and can see both the benefits and harms attributed to both deistic religions (such as Catholicism) and non-deistic religions (such as atheism and feminism).

That having been said, I truly and thoroughly enjoyed this book. A lot. For truly intellectually curious people who don’t want to live in an echo chamber, this book is truly thought-provoking in a number of important realms.

As a scientist and engineer, I am keenly aware of the fact scientists and technologists of various sorts are paid every day to apply their skills and knowledge to ethically dubious ends. It is extremely common for such people to adopt an attitude of moral agnosticism and effectively do whatever they are paid to do. Witness, for example, the fact that fields of science gave us nerve gas, biological weapons, Xyklon B and nuclear bombs. It is science that, in the future, may well produce breeds of post-humans that hold mere humans in thrall or create custom humans as slaves. Though followers of deistic religions may well have wreaked havoc, it is only science that holds the promise of efficient and achievable genocide, and the vaporization of untold hundreds of thousands or millions of people in the blink of an eye.

Though this book spends a lot of very entertaining time pointing out the contradictions, inconsistencies and even hypocrisy of self-proclaimed Atheists who make a big deal of their atheism, the major contribution of this book, in my opinion, is at the intersection of science and morality. It takes a deep breath, takes a step back, takes a hard look, and asks meaningful and important questions.

Science and technology are powerful, and their application has profound implications for the nature of human life in the future.

Though the atheist/religionist debate is often framed in terms of a war between reason and mysticism, Vox Day shows the irrationality that likewise underlies atheism — and then exposes science to the blinding glare of observation and asks the important moral questions.

I consider this book to be important. Very important. It is not particularly important from the perspective of debate, but rather for the questions it raises concerning the junction of science and morality as well as the future of human societies.

The reviewer rather presciently focuses on an area that has been of increasing interest to me in the time since I wrote TIA. The blithe assumption on the part of many scientists and science fetishists that science is somehow beyond good and evil on the basis of its effectiveness is potentially disastrous.

Already, we are seeing limits imposed on scientific publishing, as in the case of the recent court decision in the Netherlands concerning a ban on the scientific publication of research related to viruses. “For the first time, it is now clear that with this regulation, the distribution of scientific knowledge can also be restricted.”

This genuine limitation on scientific research hasn’t stirred much anywhere nearly as much outrage among the scientific community as stickers on various biology schoolbooks, which indicates that many, if not most, scientists are far more concerned with defending their present scientific paradigms than they are with defending science itself. Which, in itself, poses a fairly serious philosophical problem.

The philosophical failure of science

If he’s not careful, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Scientists is going to round up James Delingpole for excess public brutality. His demolition of the BBC and its so-called science experts borders on pure sadism:

The Beeb constantly resorts to ‘experts’ whose arguments are bigoted, feeble, fatuous, fallacious and stupid

‘Well, you’re arguing facts against opinions. OK, I
mean, the fact that the amount of carbon dioxide in the air has rocketed
up since the Industrial Revolution, and continues to rocket up, is a
fact. Now, it’s so much a fact that even the climate change deniers look
away from it and don’t deny it.’
— Professor Steve Jones, Feedback, BBC Radio 4, 18 October

Have a look at that last sentence. It represents such a cherishably
stupid, rude, fatuous, crabby, bigoted, ignorant, petulant, feeble,
fallacious, dishonest and misleading argument that if it turned out the
speaker in question was a professor of logic or philosophy you really
might want to shoot yourself in despair.

Can you see what the problem is? Let me explain. This angry professor
character wants us to believe that there are people called ‘climate
change deniers’ who are so far outside the pale of reasonable discourse
that even when they are right it’s another sign of just how wrong they
are.

Atmospheric CO2 has been rising since the Industrial
Revolution, Jones is telling us, but those pesky deniers are so slippery
that they refuse to deny this fact. If they did, presumably, it would
make Jones’s job a lot easier because then he’d be able to provide a
clear example of these wrong ‘opinions’ deniers supposedly hold.
Apparently, though, Jones is unable to produce such a clear example. So
instead he has to fabricate one and — in the very next breath — to
discount it by conceding that actually this is a point on which ‘even’
the ‘deniers’ agree.

It’s a bad sign for the state of science when the average anklebiting blog troll can produce arguments that are more coherent, credible, and convincing than the official mouthpieces of scientific consensus. But then, that’s what happens when scientists show they are more dedicated to scientistry than scientody.

Appeal to authority are inherently problematic. But appealing to the climatological authority of a biologist whose specialty is snails? It requires years of J-school to produce that quixotic form of genius.

Age and declining sexual value

Susan Walsh attempted to disprove what she describes as “The Myth of Plummeting Female Sexual Market Value“:

A reader shared this bit of male wishful thinking about female sexual market value. It was apparently cooked up by a typically disgruntled and sexually frustrated older male licking his mating wounds.

It’s easy to see why this appeals to the 30-something guy who feels like a mating failure. The female’s sexual attractiveness peaks at the ripe old age of 16.5, and by 20, her sexual market value is plummeting. By the age of 33, she’s flunking miserably with only 25% of her mojo left!

Oddly, her sexual value decreases slowly after that, with little decrease at all after age 55 – whoo hoo. Of course, there’s not much room left for decline – she’s at a measly 3% by then. A dried up and withered old crone.

However, her critique had a few holes in it, in much the same way that the nuclear power plant in Fukushima has had a few problems. I addressed them in two parts at Alpha Game, the first part dealing with the logical elements, to the extent they can be reasonably described that way, and the second part analyzing what was presented rather optimistically as “the math”.

Of course, it would have been faster to simply post the link to the video Heartiste describes as The Wall, In Fast Forward.

Selenoth wikia

I haven’t done anything more than create it, but if you’re interested in participating in the Selenoth wiki, please feel free to join in. And if you’re very, very interested, I’d like to find two people who are willing to contribute and serve as administrators, since the odds that the usual suspects aren’t going to vandalize it from time to time are nil.

I realized, in the process of working on Book Two, that if I already needed a printout just to keep things straight, there are probably others who find it a hopeless task and could use an easy online reference.

Voice rock

One of my childhood friends and fellow NOBOY is a member of this a capella group. They’re very good musicians, and I find it vastly amusing to see my old friend is still every bit as much the freak he was when he was writing songs about groupers in the sea of ineffable reality. And I still like his voice.

Of course, if one considers the differences between Psykosonik and Face, it would appear the only musical influence I can claim to have had on him is to cause him to flee in precisely the opposite direction. Although the two of us did once perform “The Road to Great Cthulhu” at Christmas together, to general mystification.

Turnabout is fair play

Some game reviewers crying because a developer played hardball:

Here’s a quote from Totalbiscuit:  Unfortunately, every day we have to sit there worrying, will some company decide to abuse the copyright claim system to destroy my livelihood today?

Another popular youtube guy, Francis, also chimed in with this: YouTube has saved my life, and it terrifies me that with this system in place, it’s possible all of this will disappear tomorrow morning.”

and this: Your dream, your livelihood, your future… everything you’re aspiring to be can go *snap* like that.  It’s terrifying.

That’s powerful stuff.   It is terrifying.  How do I know? Many video game developers live this every day of their lives.

Many of us, especially indies, have made staggering sacrifices to pursue our dreams.  Financial, mental, emotional, relationship.  Many of us pour our life energy into our creation.  We dream for success.  We dread failure.  Failure is catastrophic.

Especially indies, who rely almost exclusively – not on multi million dollar marketing budgets, but on the people who review and talk about their games.  A review by someone like Totalbiscuit can completely change the fortune of an indie developer.  And I mean completely.

First of all, having been a nationally syndicated game reviewer as well as a game developer, I am EXTREMELY dubious that any reviewer has the sort of power being described here. I suspect an amount of correlation/causation confusion. Second, while Totalbiscuit may be an excellent reviewer, (and he is clearly more conscientious than most with regards to playing through the entire game before reviewing it), it appears no wise old editor ever taught him a very important lesson concerning game reviews.

It’s one that I was taught by Chris Lombardi of Computer Gaming World when I was reviewing a very, very bad game for CGW, a game that has repeatedly made Worst Game Ever lists, and it was a lesson I never forgot.

After I emailed him the review, he called me up and said: “It’s a really funny review. It made me laugh out loud. And it isn’t publishable. Drop the ba-doom-boom stuff; it’s not professional.”

What he meant by “ba-doom-boom stuff” was lines like this: “In space, no one can hear you scream.  And when it comes to Salvation Prophecy, that might be a good thing.”  These sorts of one-liners indicate that the reviewer is sacrificing the game on the altar of a punchline. And that’s not only unfair to the game, it shows that the review has become more about showing off the reviewer’s clever wit than actually reviewing the game itself.

I don’t know if the game developer was in its rights or not to get the review taken down; that is outside my area of competence. I do know that as a general rule, I am 100 percent opposed to DMCA-related nonsense. But I also know that if reviewers are resolutely professional and play fair in their reviews, developers are unlikely to react in an unprofessional and unfair manner even when the reviews are less than flattering.

Mailvox: 25 reasons for Trinitarian skepticism

PB actually emailed me 100 reasons why he feels my skepticism concerning the Trinity doctrine are correct. But the first 25 are more than sufficient for the purposes of discussion.

1. Because
Jesus Christ is represented by the sacred writers to be as distinct a
being from God the Father as one man is distinct from another. “It is
written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one who bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me” (John 8:17 and 18).
2. Because he not only never said that himself was God, but, on the contrary, spoke of the Father, who sent him, as God, and as the only God. “This is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent” (John 17:3). This language our Saviour used in solemn prayer to “his Father and our Father.”
3. Because he is declared, in unnumbered instances, to be the Son of God. “And lo, a voice from heaven, saying, this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Matt. 3:17). Can a son be coeval(the same age) and the same with his father?
4. Because he is styled the Christ, or the anointed of God. “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power” (Acts 10:38). Is he who anoints the same with him who is anointed?
5. Because he is represented as a Priest. “Consider the ….High-Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus” (Heb. 3:1). The office of a priest is to minister to God. Christ, then, as a priest, cannot be God.
6. Because Christ is Mediator between the “One God,” and “men.” “For there is one God, and oneMediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5).
7. Because, as the Saviour of men, he was sent by the Father. “And we have seen and do testify thatthe Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world” (1 John 4:14).
8. Because he is an Apostle appointed by God. “Consider the Apostle,…Christ Jesus, who was faithful to him that appointed him” (Heb. 3:1 and 2).
9. Because Christ is represented as our intercessor with God. “It is Christ that died, yea, rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us” (Rom. 8:34).
10. Because the head of Christ is God. “I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of every woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor. 11:3).
11. Because, in the same sense in which we are said to belong to Christ, Christ is said to belong to God. “And ye are Christ’s; and Christ is God’s” (1 Cor. 3:23).
12. Because Christ says, “My father is greater than all” (John 10:29). Is not the father, then greater than the son?
13. Because he affirms, in another connection, and without the least qualification, “My Father is greater than I” (John 14:28).
14. Because he virtually denies that he is God, when he exclaims, “Why callest thou me Good? There is none good but one, that is God” (Matt. 19:17).
15. Because our Saviour, after having said, “I and my Father are one,” gives his disciples distinctly to understand that he did not mean one substance, equal in power and glory, but one only in affection and design, as clearly appears from the prayer he offers to his Father in their behalf, –“that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us” (John 17:21).
16. Because the Father is called the God of Christ as he is the God of Christians. Jesus saith unto her, “….Go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father; and to my Godand your God” (John 20:17).
17. Because an Apostle says of God, in distinction from the “Lord Jesus Christ,” that He is the “onlyPotentate,” and that He “only hath immortality” (1 Tim. 6:15 and 16).
18. Because it is the express declaration of the same Apostle, that the Father is the one God, and there is none other. “Though there be that are called Gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) yet to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things” (1 Cor. 8:5 and 6).
19. Because the power which Christ possessed was, as him affirmed, given to him. “All power isgiven unto me” (Matt. 28:18).
20. Because he positively denies himself to be the author of his miraculous works, but refers them to the Father, or the holy spirit of God. “The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works” (John14:10). “If I cast out devils by the spirit of God” (Matt. 12:28).
21. Because he distinctly states, that these works bear witness, not to his own power, but that theFather had sent him (John 5:36).
22. Because he expressly affirms that the works were done, not in his own name, but in his Father’s name (John 10:25).
23. Because he asserts, that “him hath God the Father sealed,” i.e. to God the Father he was indebted for his credentials (John 6:27).
24. Because he declares that he is not the author of his own doctrine. “My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me” (John 7:16 and 17).

25. Because he represents himself as having been instructed by the Father. “As my Father hath taught me, I speak these things” (John 8:28).

Regardless of what your opinion on of the matter is, I think it is important to keep in mind that Christians should not elevate theological understanding to an overly sacred status. It is repentance and acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior that are the central issues of our faith, not an ability to see more clearly through the glass than others. Jesus, you may recall, was never overly impressed with intellectual ability.

Arm the world

Considering the idea of a global Second Amendment:

Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble said today the U.S. and the rest of the democratic world is at a security crossroads in the wake of last month’s deadly al-Shabab attack at a shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya – and suggested an answer could be in arming civilians.

In an exclusive interview with ABC News, Noble said there are really only two choices for protecting open societies from attacks like the one on Westgate mall where so-called “soft targets” are hit: either create secure perimeters around the locations or allow civilians to carry their own guns to protect themselves.

“Societies have to think about how they’re going to approach the problem,” Noble said. “One is to say we want an armed citizenry; you can see the reason for that. Another is to say the enclaves are so secure that in order to get into the soft target you’re going to have to pass through extraordinary security.”

Call it the Freedom From Terror Treaty. National governments will agree to guarantee the provision of a concealable revolver, with a choice ranging from 9mm to .357 magnum to every adult male citizen and permanent resident.

Arms dealers will love it: more sales. Keynesian economists will love it: more government spending. Police will love it: less crime. And excluding the women will make the feminists furious about being left out, so they’ll endorse it once the treaty authors agree to modify it and include them. 

Everybody wins… except the terrorists.

Setting the record straight

CJ Grisham has been rightly concerned that people, even some commenters here, have been misled concerning his ongoing dispute with Michael Yon.

I’m making this post public because it’s high time Michael Yon ate his words. I don’t share this to pump myself up but to warn – again – that if Michael Yon ever steps foot back in the United States I will slap a defamation and libel suit on his ass faster than a Thai take-out place can read back his order. Yon has not merely suggested that I am a case of Stolen Valor or stated he “thinks” I’m a case of Stolen Valor. He also states as fact that I lied about helping with the capture of 8 of the top 55 Iraqi leaders in 2003. He also claims I never saw combat. He has reported it as fact both on his public Facebook page and his personal blog. I have screenshots galore, so even if he goes back and deletes these references, I have them. So, I offer this up to again discredit a man that has little or no credibility left.

This is the NCOER I received in July while in Fallujah, Iraq. Feel free to share this far and wide. I’m not afraid.

Having been the subject of similar calumnies and repeated attacks by a dishonest, media-friendly psychological wreck myself, I’m quite happy to help Mr. Grisham set the record straight by posting the documentary evidence that shows Mr. Yon’s assertions about him to be false. Relentlessly self-promoting narcissists like Michael Yon, McRapey, and Hugo Danger always go off the deep end sooner or later, and the one thing they absolutely cannot bear are those who not only see through their deceptions, but aren’t afraid to call them out on their lies and misrepresentations.

And just to be clear, here are Mr. Yon’s direct assertions concerning Mr. Grisham, made last year on Facebook:

Michael Yon · 62,269 like this
October 21, 2012 at 9:35pm ·

Stolen Valor? 

I have here in front of my eyes CJ Grisham’s military records. He says he got a Bronze Star with V — this is not reflected on his records. What I see in these records is a boring, slow career. Others do more in two years.

Barbara — I have a dispatch going up today but will publish Grisham’s records probably on Tuesday. Even a rat such as Grisham should have the opportunity to defend himself. He says he got a Bronze Star with V. That medal is not on his records. Maybe his records are wrong. He can always publish the citation. Without that, it does not exist.
October 21, 2012 at 10:14pm 

The records cover the date that he claims to have BSV. Am not saying he does not have BSV, but that it is not reflected on records. The BSV is just not there. Either he is lying, or his records are wrong. No two ways about that.
October 22, 2012 at 7:33pm