On advice of counsel

The SFWA’s official announcement of my expulsion doesn’t happen to mention me or why I was expelled.  The SFWA President didn’t provide a reason in his email to me either.  That was interesting in light of this belated addition to the official announcement:

Amended to add:

We will continue to omit the expelled individual’s name and the details of his behavior on advice of counsel.

They can’t mention the reason, of course, because that would reveal that their action was either a) highly selective, or, b) ideologically driven.

Meanwhile, Jemisin makes it clear, in her uniquely civilized way, that she’s got others on her hit list:

I’m still thinking about how much I’m willing to put up with, and for how much longer.

For the time being, though, I’ll remain a SFWA member. By expelling Mr. Beale,
and making a clear choice to offend at least one bigot this one time,
SFWA has done the bare minimum of what it must to retain relevance to
the bulk of its membership. Much, much more needs to be done, and I
suspect the organization will always be reactive to change
rather than proactive in this area. Frankly I don’t expect better of a
group that took 10 weeks to decide whether a member who spread hate
speech in its name was deserving of the label “professional”. But at
least for now SFWA might manage to stay relevant enough, to enough
people, to last awhile longer. I guess we’ll have to see.

Some time ago, I warned several SFWA members who were on the political left but concerned about the precedent an expulsion would set that my expulsion would not mark the end, but rather the beginning of the ideological cleansing. The mediocre feminist members of the organization, virtually none of whom should ever have been permitted to join in the first place, have nothing better to do than play sex police and ideological enforcer.  They love having an excuse to be outraged and if they can’t find one, they will manufacture one. I may be the first to be expelled by the rampaging rabbits, but it seems very unlikely I will be the last.

The lesson of the SFWA saga is the way in which it demonstrates how good organizations are invaded, conquered, and purged of both its purpose and its members by the progressive Left.  If your church, or your business, or your interest organization is not actively on guard against such individuals, and is not prepared to prevent them from joining, then the chances are very good that the process you have observed here is already underway.

In case you are interested, here is the actual vote.  Note that none of the four individuals named in the response, who were documented as doing the same thing I was accused of in the complaint, recused themselves.  Even the Board Appointed prosecutor voted:

Moved: That, having determined there is good and sufficient cause, a member be expelled from the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America for conduct materially and seriously prejudicial to the purposes and interests of the organization.

Steven Gould, President
Rachel Swirsky, Vice President–Second

Lee Martindale, South/Central Regional Director–Aye
Jim Fiscus, Western Regional Director–Aye
Matthew Johnson, Canadian Director–Aye
Bud Sparhawk, Treasurer–Aye
Tansy Rayner Roberts, Overseas Director–Aye
Eugene Myers, Eastern Regional Director–Aye
Susan Forest, Secretary–Aye

Vote carried: 9-0-0-0


Lions Den II: Michael Z. Williamson

The level of interest in the Lion’s Den has been high enough that I’m going to have to post one every week for a while. As it happens, Baen Books author Michael Z. Williamson has a newly released collection of essays and short stories entitled Tour of Duty: Stories and Provocations. It’s eclectic, and as you might expect from Mr. Williamson, restrained to the point of being demure. His post here is a selection from the opening essay “How I Got This Job” and raises some fascinating questions about his past.


If you would like to be one of the three volunteer reviewers, please email me.

It’s almost a stereotype that science fiction authors have an odd employment history.  I got caught in the first round of military cutbacks in the late 1980s, wound up getting my re-enlistment canceled, and out the gate on a week’s notice.  I had to get all the essential stuff I didn’t have—an apartment, a bed, kitchen utensils, a cat—on credit.  Then I had to find a job in a sucky area for jobs.  Champaign-Urbana being a small town with a large college has lots of well-educated, needy, underpaid applicants for jobs.  I took some hourly positions in fabrication shops, and doing machine maintenance, and even as shift manager at a pizza place, until I could get enrolled for school with the GI bill to help.  I also enlisted in the Army National Guard.

During this time, I hung out a lot with the Society for Creative Anachronism, and someone with a small business asked if I’d both craft armor and weapons for them to sell, and be a sales rep for those and other products.  Every weekend, I was at Drill, or a convention, or a re-enactment.  I stopped working day jobs and did school weekdays. The money wasn’t great, but it was enough to see me through classes.

A funny thing happened on the way to my degree.  I went to a convention in Minneapolis.  I arrived after a day of school, a night of driving, and no sleep, so I wasn’t really lucid after ten hours of setup and selling.  A friend of mine introduced me to a friend of hers, wearing leather and spandex and nothing else except boots and a sword.  We got to talking, and talking some more, and had a great time.  She was curvy and cute, great to talk to, and almost psychic.  While I was trying to come up with a clever way to say “is there somewhere more quiet we can go?” she asked me, “So, should we find somewhere more private?”

Good idea.

I actually was dating someone at the time, though not exclusively.  I made a point of saying so, that I was free for the weekend, but couldn’t promise more than that.  So we had the weekend.

A funny thing about one night stands.  They don’t always last one night.  A month later, she drove all the way to Milwaukee to join me at a convention there, and a month after that, she stopped by the apartment in Illinois on her way to Florida.

She never got to Florida, and still hasn’t.  She managed, very politely, to divert my date for that weekend into an accomplice and roommate, move us into a rental house, find another roommate, and wind up my Significant Other.

Twenty-two years later, twenty of them married, Gail is still here. The bitch just won’t leave.  On the other hand, I haven’t had any reason to throw her out.   But it’s a one night stand.  Honest.

I paid my way through college several ways.   I had the GI bill. I had National Guard drills and volunteered as support for whatever extra days they needed people for.  I was a stripper (yes, really) for decent money, though not often enough.  The small enterprise I worked for moved and folded.  We started our own small business. I worked on blades—repairs, sharpening, custom crafting, and selling retail at SF conventions, SCA events and occasional other events.  She helped with sales, costumes, and the tax paperwork.

Gail went back to school, too, having previously attended University of Minnesota and a local college.  She managed fast food, then wound up doing office management.

Winters were the slow season, and I spent those times trying to build up inventory, scrape money from what small events there were, stringing my wife’s income along into a fine thread, and writing.

I left school without a degree, though I have more than enough credit for a master’s.  The problem is, it’s in electronic controls, history, English, physics, and none of it complete as a program.  I was making enough from events, and enjoying it, that I didn’t miss the official stamps (I do hold a Journeyman’s certificate in HVAC, and a certificate in electrical controls).

Gail’s research suggested that if we moved, we could keep the same cost of living but earn more money. I wasn’t tied to down to any location.  The only complication was that I had transferred back to the Air National Guard at this point, and would have a four hour drive for drill.  It was workable, until I could find a slot in a unit closer to home.

So we moved to the Indianapolis area, staying with friends until we got settled, and yes, managing to earn twice as much money for the same cost of living. So I kept doing it, we managed with some great years and lean years, and in the late 90s, my firearm articles started getting published.  Summers were, and still are, hectic with events.  I took four years of winters to write “Freehold,” which is not my best writing, of course, but was heartfelt and earnest at the time.

SF, though, especially military SF, is not a sellers’ market.  Several experienced authors advised me to “write short stories,” build up a following with sales, then get a novel sold.

It used to work that way.  That was falling by the wayside at the turn of 2000, and is pretty much no longer valid advice, in my opinion.

My shorts got rejected, often because they sucked.  I knew my grasp of language was sufficient.  I knew I had good plots and characters, but something in the construction was missing.

By the time I wrote the first short story that follows, I thought I had a reasonable grasp of the art, and the friends I could trust to be honest not only liked it, but had discussions among themselves about it.  Of course, that didn’t mean it would work for any particular periodical.  It was frustrating.

I groused about this fact on Baen’s Bar, where I’d been holding lengthy debates on the history of weapons and the logistics around them.  I was always careful to spell and punctuate properly.  It’s what I do, and this was a publisher’s site.  I didn’t want to make the people who use the language for a living cringe with my errors.

So I complained about all these rejections of, “Alas, we can’t use it at this time.”  “Alas, it doesn’t quite grab us.”  “Alas, it doesn’t fit our current needs.”

They were saying, “Dear aspirant:  Sorry, try again.”  Why pretty it up with archaic wordage?

Jim Baen replied, “Perhaps they’re trying to be alliterative.  Alack, alas, alay…”  He wrote a whole paragraph of alliterative A-words, which ended with, “That said, send me one. single. chapter. of something you’re working on and I’ll take a look at it.”

After a brief adrenaline shock I shooed my wife from the office (er, kitchen), and I emailed him “One.  Single.  Chapter.”

He replied, “I. Have. Read. It,” and offered some small advice, which of course I took.  He suggested I add a bit on a page about a departure from Earth, describing the shuttle in detail.  I didn’t see the point.  It was a plot device more than anything, connecting two scenes.  But, Mister Baen had been doing this as long as I’d been alive.  I took his advice under consideration, and yes, it turned a break into a segue.  An astute editor, that Mister Baen, which is of course why I’d been trying to court his attention.

He then asked for another chapter.  A week later, he asked for another.  He was politely unhappy with some rambling parts, which I fixed.  We went on.  Finally, he said, “Just send me the rest of the book,” and told me to politely remind him once a month.  Six months after that, I got a late night email that said, “Mike, let’s call it a deal.  I’ll take Freehold for (respectable sum of money for someone desperately broke at that time), and have Marla send you our boilerplate contract.”

I did consult with my friend Dave Drake to make sure I understood all the ramifications of said contract.  But I said yes.

I still only have one TV in the house, and it’s used more for movies and games than TV.  I got cable when it was necessary for Olympic coverage.  My son plays the games.  If it weren’t for the computer (no games here, either) I wouldn’t need a screen at all, really.  I spend most of the time writing, ranting and creating.  I do less events than I used to, but still quite a few.  Some are large for promotion and profit.  Some are small for promotion and to hang out with friends.  I still forge blades and do repairs, but it’s a money-making hobby, not really a job.  I also do product reviews to provide feedback to manufacturers, and to then promote the stuff that holds up well.  I’ve reviewed tactical lights, cameras, guns, backpacks, survival rations, training videos, any number of items relevant to disaster preparedness.

So here I am, doing what I love doing, getting paid for it, and telling you about it.

It’s been a hell of a ride so far.


Of Pharyngulans and fake reviews

It would appear my expulsion from the SFWA is not enough to satisfy some rabbits, as a few of them are upset that the Amazon star rating for A Throne of Bones is a respectable 4.3 out of 5.  It’s interesting to see that while book lovers on the right don’t hesitate to publicly support left-wing writers, those on the left can’t even bear to consider the possibility that an ideological opponent might have written a book worth reading.  This is one reason why the Left is so frequently taken by surprise and obiterated in debate; they very seldom bother reading material from the other side and therefore have no idea what the other side’s positions and arguments actually are.

People sometimes ask me how I can so easily tell a review is fake, forgetting that I was once a nationally syndicated reviewer.  It’s usually obvious, because the fraudulent reviewer phrases his criticism in general terms, criticize various aspects of the book in an incoherent manner, and not infrequently refers to things that don’t even exist in the book. Fake reviews also usually appear right after something has happened to stir the warren up. In general, they read like an extreme case of a reviewer phoning it in, which is something that almost every professional reviewer has done from time to time.

Of course, it’s even easier to identify a fake review when someone publicly admits to posting one, as per this conversation yesterday at Pharyngula:

47 The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
14 August 2013 at 5:33 pm

Since Vox Day has decided to “correct” the “errors” in George R. R. Martin’s fiction, perhaps someone should head over to Amazon and “correct” the 4.3-out-of-5-star rating on 109 reviews. Pharyngulate this sucker!
 

49 anuran
14 August 2013 at 5:48 pm
@47 TVRBoK,
I’ve given it a more appropriate review

54 JAL: Snark, Sarcasm & Bitterness
14 August 2013 at 6:00 pm

Careful. With this comment he’ll be able to know which is your review. I don’t expect good things. But that’s your decision, with my situation the first thought was the risk involved.

71 ogremeister
15 August 2013 at 12:31 am 
Hmmm…and what will be your opinion should his followers decide to retaliate against PZ’s book?

Anuran, as it happens, appears to be one Todd Ellner from Portland, Oregon, who posted the following “review” of A Throne of Bones:

Tedious wish fulfillment
1.0 out of 5 stars, August 14, 2013

Flat characters, A plot that would need contour and triple integration to be considered “derivative” and a lot of chest-thumping Manly Men doing Manly Things with Manly Men. All that’s missing is the Heroic PUA.

The petty behavior of the SFWA further illustrates why Amazon was wise to ban all authors from reviewing books on its site.  I hope that they will soon also institute a policy of eliminating all reviews written by reviewers known to have written a fake one, and barring those individuals from reviewing products in the future.

As for retaliation against PZ’s book, my position is the same as it was when McRapey’s rabbits were posting fake reviews on Amazon. First, PZ didn’t take any such action himself or advocate it. Second, he is not responsible for the actions of his readers. Third, one’s integrity should not permit one to write a false review of a book, no matter how much one despises the author.  Fourth, I am actively opposed to all fake reviews, be they pro or con.  I do not want anyone who considers himself a reader, a fan, a regular, or Dread Ilk to write fake reviews of anything.  Why?  Because lying about what you have not read is wrong.

In this vein, notice that even the Pharyngulans who don’t think Mr. Ellner should post the fake review frame their objections in risk/reward terms rather than moral terms.  This illustrates a common theme here, which is that atheists simply do not possess a universal objective morality to which they can appeal when addressing the behavior of others.

I won’t pretend that reviews don’t matter. They do, which is why I always encourage those who have read the book, and liked it, to take the time to post reviews on Amazon. But I’m not sure that the fake ones don’t help more than they harm, because a cluster of one-star reviews not only increase the overall number of reviews, but indicate that the author is, at the very least, capable of inspiring genuine passion.

I should also be clear that I neither intended nor claimed to “correct” any “errors” in George Martin’s fiction. I am, as it happens, a fan of Martin’s fiction and think highly of the first three books in A Song of Ice and Fire. However, I think the direction he has been leading the subgenre of epic fantasy is a psychologically and creatively barren one and I began writing The Arts of Dark and Light as an attempt to show how an admittedly lesser writer could nevertheless accomplish more by rejecting Martin’s nihilism in favor of long-standing moral traditions.

And with only one book in the series having been written, I think it is far too soon for anyone to say if I have succeeded or failed in that regard.  For that matter, it may even be too soon to be certain that Martin is not considerably more conventional than he has hitherto appeared to be in the first five books.


Mailvox: superior atheist intelligence

A psychologist writes from Finland:

I enjoyed greatly your book Irrational Atheist and used it in my two books about atheism published here in Finland. Have you noticed the new study the summary of which is below? I have not read the full article, yet, but will do it. This must be great news for those “bright” atheists.

The Finnish PhD is referring to this metastudy, which noted: “A new review of 63 scientific studies stretching back over decades has concluded that religious people are less intelligent than non-believers.”

Setting aside my intrinsic skepticism concerning the reliability of metastudies, this finding is nothing new and I have readily conceded that religious individuals are less intelligent than non-believers in general and atheists in particular on average for years.  However, what the midwits who get very excited about this statistical fact never seem to keep in mind is that because there are so many more religious people, there are considerably more highly intelligent religious people than there are highly intelligent non-believers.

In fact, the ratio of theists to atheists with Mensa+ level IQs is more than 10 to one.

Logic dictates that because the vast majority of people are religious, the average religious IQ is right around 100.  This is, in fact, what most of the religion and IQ studies have determined.  The average atheist IQ advantage appears on the order of about 5 points. That is less than one-third the 16 point difference in average IQs observed between blacks and whites.

So, a substantial portion of the observed difference between average religious and irreligious IQs can be attributed to the fact that atheists tend to be a) male, and, b) European or Jewish.  Now isn’t that awkward….

More importantly, the fact that people who believe X happen to be modestly more intelligent than people who believe Y does not indicate that the first group is correct. I suspect that the average IQ of the economists who believed massive quantitative easing would produce economic growth in Japan is considerably higher than that of the average atheist, and yet the recent GDP report shows it would have been hard for them to have been more wrong.


The SFWA Board decides

Well, so long as the consideration of the evidence was careful….

After careful consideration of the evidence gathered by the Board-appointed investigator and your response, and in compliance with the existing Massachusetts By-Laws, the approved operations and procedures, and legal counsel, the SFWA Board has unanimously voted for your expulsion from the organization, effective immediately. This has been a difficult decision, but thorough examination of the evidence and the situation makes it clear that this action is necessary to best serve the interests of the organization and its members.

According to our records, you paid for your Lifetime Membership in October of 2002. As this period of time exceeds 10 years, you are not eligible for any pro-rata refund of your dues.

Sincerely,

Steven Gould
President
Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America

Fascinating. Notice that Steven Gould informs me “the SFWA Board has unanimously voted for your expulsion from the organization”, but he did not inform me that I was actually been expelled, nor did SFWA subsequently announce my expulsion, presumably because Gould knows “the existing Massachusetts By-Laws” state that as per Title XXII, Chapter 180, Section 18: No member of such corporation shall be expelled by vote of
less than a majority of all the members thereof, nor by vote of less
than three quarters of the members present and voting upon such
expulsion.

In any event, if you’d like to see the evidence that was so carefully considered by the SFWA Board yourself, you can download the two relevant documents:

And if you’re looking for my immediate response to what appears to be an elaborate charade on the part of the SFWA Board, all I can really say is this: rabbits gonna rabbit.

UPDATE: I was initially been under the impression that SFWA had expelled me from the organization. But after legal review, it was determined that the Board merely took the first step in the process since they have not yet held the full membership vote to confirm their decision that is required by the existing Massachusetts By-Laws.


    Tiananmen Spring

    You may recall I was more than a little dubious about the “Arab Spring” being trumpeted by Middle East experts such as Thomas Friedman:

    A security operation to clear protesters camped out on the streets of
    Cairo since President Mohamed Morsi was deposed by the military last
    month has left at least 40 people died. The Egyptian Interior Ministry says 200 people have been arrested,
    including 50 in the Rabaa al-Adawiya sit-in in Nasr City and 150 at the
    Nahda Square sit-in in Giza.

    By mid-morning, state television reported that security forces had finished breaking up the sit-in there. Bulldozers were said to have been used to uproot the camps. The Interior Ministry said security forces had “total control” over
    Nahda Square, and that “police forces had managed to remove most of the
    tents” in the area. Security forces had blocked all access to the
    protest camp.


    Sources on the ground told Al Jazeera of at least 40 fatalities,
    while the Muslim Brotherhood said at least 300 people had been killed,
    with more than 5,000 others injured.

    Democracy is not a viable alternative for any society that is not both fully civilized and homogenous.  It used to work for the USA and the UK.  It still works in Japan. It has never really worked on the continent of Europe. It is not a societal panacea and it should never come as a surprise when the imposition of a democratic system leads directly to violence and political turmoil.

    Remember, civil war is nothing more than extreme politics.


    End raciss, ban clowns

    Apparently clowns are no longer permitted to mock certain sacred personages in the Land of the Formerly Free:

    The fallout from a Missouri rodeo clown’s mockery of President Obama continued as the Missouri State Fair said it will force all clowns to undergo sensitivity training and the head of the state rodeo-clown organization resigned. The state fair commission voted Monday to ratify its decision to ban for life the clown in question who wore an Obama mask….

    But the state commission went further Monday, saying it will require that before the Missouri Rodeo Cowboy Association can take part in any future state fair, “they must provide evidence to the director of the Missouri State Fair that they have proof that all officials and subcontractors of the MRCA have successfully participated in sensitivity training.”

    When Robert Heinlein wrote of the Crazy Years, he little knew how right he would one day be.  The insane thing is that clowns are being sent to insensitivity training for fear of their antics stoking white racism, meanwhile, “juveniles and young adults” of some mysterious and unidentifiable race are beating the hell out of clueless white liberals in Ramsey County about 15 minutes from where I used to live.

    The victim, Ray Widstrand, 26, of St. Paul, reportedly was in critical condition at Regions Hospital with potentially fatal brain swelling. Police found Widstrand lying on the ground, bleeding from his nose and mouth, his pants removed and shirt torn, according to a criminal complaint filed by the Ramsey County attorney’s office…. According to the complaint, Widstrand was attacked when he tried to walk through a group of 30 to 50 juveniles and young adults fighting near Payne and Minnehaha avenues in the Payne-Phalen neighborhood about 11:30 p.m. Sunday.

    Providing every clown in the country with sensitivity training is not going to blind whites, Hispanics, and Asians to the fact that “juveniles and young adults” of some mysterious and unidentifiable race are attacking and killing whites all over the country because they hate them.  Desegregation is a complete and utter failure, and if legal segregation is not permitted, the historical solution of popular violence will be inevitable, with Hispanics leading the way.

    I suspect the main reason it hasn’t started yet is that the only whites dumb enough to put themselves in a position to be harmed by these feral packs of vibrant juveniles and diverse young adults of the sort pictured above tend to either be homeless or come from liberal families.  There are millions of families in the USA whose response to a child being attacked and murdered would not be the feeble confusion expressed by Ray Widstrand’s father.

    “I can’t imagine why someone would do this to another person.”

    No, obviously he can’t.  And that’s precisely why his son is now lying half-dead at Regions Hospital. Every father should have the Derbyshire Talk with his children. It might be a lifesaver.


    The right side

    Looking at these two lists, I’d definitely prefer to be on the side I’m assigned.  I can’t help but notice the supposedly “Insane People” are considerably more successful, accomplished, and better-looking, for the most part, than the “Sane People”.


    Rules of Writing III

    3. Thou shalt not make thy characters graven images of thyself

    One of the weakest elements in a distressingly large amount of modern fiction is the character as authorial wish fulfillment. While all of the author’s characters spring from either the author’s personal experience, historical research, past reading, or imagination, the character as author’s representative almost always tends to weaken the story as well as the reader’s ability to immerse himself in it.

    This can be seen most clearly in the example of the Mary Sue trope, which is described as follows:

    The name “Mary Sue” comes from the 1974 Star Trek fanfic A Trekkie’s Tale. Originally written as a parody of the standard Self Insert Fic of the time (as opposed to any particular traits), the name was quickly adopted by the Star Trek fanfiction community…. The prototypical Mary Sue is an original female character in a fanfic who obviously serves as an idealized version of the author mainly for the purpose of Wish Fulfillment. She’s exotically beautiful, often having an unusual hair or eye color, and has a similarly cool and exotic name. She’s exceptionally talented in an implausibly wide variety of areas, and may possess skills that are rare or nonexistent in the canon setting. She also lacks any realistic, or at least story-relevant, character flaws — either that or her “flaws” are obviously meant to be endearing.

    She has an unusual and dramatic Back Story. The canon protagonists are all overwhelmed with admiration for her beauty, wit, courage and other virtues, and are quick to adopt her as one of their True Companions, even characters who are usually antisocial and untrusting; if any character doesn’t love her, that character gets an extremely unsympathetic portrayal. She has some sort of especially close relationship to the author’s favorite canon character — their love interest, illegitimate child, never-before-mentioned sister, etc. Other than that, the canon characters are quickly reduced to awestruck cheerleaders, watching from the sidelines as Mary Sue outstrips them in their areas of expertise and solves problems that have stymied them for the entire series.

    In other words, the term “Mary Sue” is generally slapped on a character who is important in the story, possesses unusual physical traits, and has an irrelevantly over-skilled or over-idealized nature.

    The most important aspect of the Mary Sue is its role as the author’s idealized self-representative in the story.  An example that many of the readers here will recognize is Owen Zastava Pitt in Larry Correia’s Monster Hunter International. Now, the character of Pitt works much more effectively than the average Mary Sue because the idealized version of a giant Portuguese man who makes a regular habit of shooting very large guns is both intrinsically interesting and entirely credible when it comes to slaughtering werewolves and other monsters.  Larry can get away with it because he is a literally larger-than-life character himself. The average novelist, being an obese woman or a man of low socio-sexual rank, whose most notable personal characteristics are a moderately high IQ and a preference for snarky wit, cannot.

    But even a credible Mary Sue limits the story and tends to render it predictable. This is because we immediately know who is going to win the argument, have the last word, get the girl, and save the day.  We know who the good guys and the bad guys will be on the basis of Mary Sue’s likes and dislikes. That’s not a problem in formulaic genres such as mystery and romance where the experience expected is akin to a literary roller coaster, but doesn’t work as well in other genres, particularly in a series.

    Now, because they are drawn from his imagination, most of an author’s characters will reflect some aspect of the author.  A female character might not represent him, but rather, the sort of woman to whom he is attracted. Heinlein’s ubiquitous redheads would be the primary example here. A villainous character might not represent the author, but possess traits that the author dislikes or fears in himself or others.  Jim Butcher has written a guide to writing characters which I found very interesting in that it reveals how he has created characters who are both memorable and irritatingly unrealistic at the same time.

    What is (or what makes) an interesting character?  While no one thing can really stake a sole claim, several things consistently make a team contribution: 

    Exaggeration
    Exotic position
    Introduction
    Verisimilitude
    Empathy

    I found Butcher’s thoughts on the subject to be fascinating because he has, over time, managed to create some of the most successful but irritating characters outside of the world of Robert Jordan.  But I suspect that the weaker aspects of his characters actually stem from the strength of his approach; the problem appears to be that Butcher often gets the aspects of verisimilitude and empathy wrong due to low socio-sexual rank and a sub-par grasp of human intersexual relations. I suspect that Harry Dresden is somewhat of a Mary Sue due to his arrested psychosexual development that prevents him from pursuing women or even responding to female advances.

    (Holding off on banging the little supercop for a book or three in the interest of not devolving into a story about relationships is fine. Serially turning down every sexually interested woman for twenty books indicates either a religious vocation or serious problem.)

    I’m not sure about the Exaggeration aspect either. I mean, I can see how it would be effective in the sort of series where one or two characters are considerably more important than the rest, but I think it would be mistake in a series that features more of an ensemble cast.

    Exercises:

    1. Write down the five chief characteristics of your Mary Sue character using Butcher’s guide. Now write five chief characteristics of a character that has nothing in common with the Mary Sue.  Then write a one-page interaction in which the latter character gets the better of the Mary Sue.  (You can post the Mary Sue characteristics here if you like.  But spare us the second five and the interaction.)

    2. Identify which character from ATOB most closely approaches my Mary Sue. Explain why you believe that to be the case.

    Rules of Writing II: Thou shalt know how it ends


    The Japanese experiment has failed

    The impotence of Abenomics demonstrates that Karl Denninger and others were right, Paul Krugman was wrong, and quantitative easing does not magically produce economic growth.

    In April 2013, Japan announced a QE program of $1.4 trillion, an
    amount equal to roughly 25% of the Japanese GDP. To put this into
    perspective, the US’s QE1, QE 2, QE 3, and QE 4 programs which were spaced out over four years are an amount equal to roughly 16% of US GDP.

    Japan announced a larger program relative to its economy all at once.
    The idea was that by throwing around a big enough amount of money,
    Japan’s economy would finally waken from its 20-year slumber and take
    off.

    This effort has been an abysmal failure. Japan’s second quarter GDP
    grew at just 0.6% quarter over quarter, registering the single biggest
    growth MISS in a year (economists were expecting 0.9% which, by the way had already been revised lower).

    Put in plain terms, Japan announced the single largest QE effort in
    history, and not only did its economic growth projections have to be
    lowered, but it is failing to even meet these lowered growth projections.

    The failure of Abe’s daring plan to print Japan back into prosperity should suffice to explode the inflationista argument.  The US equivalent would be a $4 trillion spending program that barely managed to keep GDP from turning negative. And in directly related news, it is absolutely fascinating to see Paul Krugman complaining that Milton Friedman is no longer a hero on the economic right:

    Friedman, who used to be the ultimate avatar of conservative economics, has essentially disappeared from right-wing discourse. Oh, he gets name-checked now and then — but only for his political polemics, never for his monetary theories. Instead, Rand Paul turns to the “Austrian” view of thinkers like Friedrich Hayek — a view Friedman once described as an “atrophied and rigid caricature” — while Paul Ryan, the G.O.P.’s de facto intellectual leader, gets his monetary economics from Ayn Rand, or more precisely from fictional characters in “Atlas Shrugged.”

    How did that happen? Friedman, it turns out, was too nuanced and realist a figure for the modern right, which doesn’t do nuance and rejects reality, which has a well-known liberal bias…. He was willing to give a little ground, and admit that government action was indeed necessary to prevent depressions. But the required government action, he insisted, was of a very narrow kind: all you needed was an appropriately active Federal Reserve. In particular, he argued that the Fed could have prevented the Great Depression — with no need for new government programs — if only it had acted to save failing banks and pumped enough reserves into the banking system to prevent a sharp decline in the money supply.

    Krugman fails to realize that the right wing is putting one of John Maynard Keynes’s few legitimate ideas into action.

    “When the facts change, I change my mind.”

    Friedman was a Keynesian, albeit a Keynesian heretic who rejected the use of fiscal policy in favor of monetary policy.  And, more importantly, he was completely wrong.  Ben Bernanke has followed an almost flawlessly Friedmanite policy, bailed out the banks, pumped massive reserves into the banking system, and prevented a sharp decline in the money supply.

    And yet, it hasn’t worked, because Friedman’s monetarist theory failed to account for the fact that it is credit money that is the larger and more important factor with regards to prices and the limits of demand, and, as Abe has shown in Japan, even an unprecedented increase in the money supply is not enough to make up for the deflationary forces at work in the various credit sectors.  One cannot push on a string and one cannot print borrowers.