No comment necessary

A comment at File 770:


The funny thing there is that, although I’ve been hanging out at Making
Light for years, this is the first year the Hugos have been a Thing
there. (There have been many more threads on food than on Hugos.)

The end of National Review

I quit reading National Review when they canned John Derbyshire for the crime of telling the truth about race. Now that it has come out out of the marital closet, I expect considerably more people on the Right to follow suit. It is readily apparent that the difference between the liberal media and the so-called conservative media is about 20 years. And, like all homogamists, he openly lies about the way in which it utterly destroys the institution of marriage:

Finally, a word on the oft-heard claim that if we recognize same-sex marriages we’ll also have to marry siblings, and groups of a hundred and three, and adults to children, and humans to invertebrates, and so on.

Members of group relationships, whatever we may think of them, manifestly have not made the same kind of choice as have those in exclusive commitments, and so there is no equal-treatment basis for their inclusion in marriage. Remember, the equal-treatment argument we outlined above does not assert that marriage is about any kind of romantic love. It asserts that marriage is about a particular form of such love — faithfulness and exclusivity subsequent to a vow of permanent commitment — that is already partially included under traditional marriage laws. (Let us note in passing the ridiculousness of speaking of an “orientation to polygamy,” as traditionalists sometimes do, unless this means trivially that anyone might feel more than one attraction at a time, in which case we are presumably all so oriented.)

There is a sense in which the other types of relationships traditionalists scare us with, even if they were exclusive, would also not involve the same kind of choice as does a romantic commitment of two unrelated adults: They would fall short, for one or both parties, of being chosen in full freedom. In the case of family members, for example, an irrevocable and unchosen bond between the two already exists, and in that sense they cannot really give themselves to each other. That is why we see incest as a perversion of a preexisting relationship. As for a child, it does not possess a sufficiently developed mind and will with which to give consent to a sexual relationship. That is why we think such a relationship is exploitative. The specific ways in which these relationships fall short of full freedom — along with the unique intensity of sexual intimacy — in turn explain the primary harms that they intrinsically risk causing (for example, by undermining impartiality and stability within families, or by psychologically damaging children).

In any case, if you want to account for the special opprobrium we reserve for such things, you will have to offer some explanation of what is specifically wrong with them.

It’s bitterly amusing to see how a nation-in-decline congratulates itself with every step it descends into Hell and the inevitable dustbin of history. But those who refuse to learn from history are usually destined to repeat its more unpleasant lessons. Or rather, their children and grandchildren are.

Economics 102 and remedial Theology

We begin with explaining the economic concept of “opportunity cost” to Jim Hines, John Scalzi, and Patrick Nielsen Hayden:

In the wake of Scalzi’s Big Book Deal, folks have been saying some rather ignorant or ill-informed stuff about how publishing works. I wanted to address a few of those points here.

Let’s start with the easiest, in which folks over on Theodore Beale’s blog claim that by Tor giving Scalzi a $3.4 million advance, they’re “squeezing out” approximately “523 initial advances to new science fiction authors.” In other words, Beale claims that “Patrick Nielsen Hayden and John Scalzi have combined to prevent more than 500 authors from getting published and receiving paid advances.”

This is a particularly egregious bit of ignorance coming from Mister Beale, who fancies himself a publisher.

Publishing is a business. As a business, Tor not only spends money on things like acquiring and publishing books, they also earn money by selling said books. Assuming Scalzi shut out 500 authors assumes that Tor is simply pissing away that $3.4 million. This is a rather asinine assumption. John Scalzi has repeatedly hit the NYT Bestseller list, earned a Best Novel Hugo, and has several TV/film deals in development for his work. Tor buys books from John Scalzi for the same reason they buy books from Orson Scott Card: those books sell a hell of a lot of copies, and earn Tor significant profits.

Very often it’s those profits — the income from reliable bestsellers like Card and Scalzi — that allow publishers to take a chance on new and unknown authors.

Let’s count the errors:

  1. Scalzi and PNH have combined to render it impossible for 523 new science fiction authors to break into mainstream publishing through Tor Books. This is a simple fact so long as we know that Tor does not have an unlimited amount of money at its disposal. The fact that Pan Macmillan just canned PNH’s counterpart at Tor UK “following a review of the company’s science fiction and fantasy publishing” should suffice to indicate that Tor’s advance budget is not limitless. The math is straightforward: PNH chose to give one author 13 advances of ~$250,000 per book rather than giving 523 authors $6,500 advances of the sort he gave John Scalzi for Old Man’s War. Any response that doesn’t take this into account is mere handwaving and evasion.
  2. I don’t fancy myself a publisher. I am very pleased to have the privilege of publishing John C. Wright, Jerry Pournelle, Eric Raymond, Tom Kratman, Sarah Salviander, Jonathan Moeller, Rolf Nelson, Martin van Creveld, and William S. Lind, among others. And we expect to announce the publication of several big names from the game industry soon.
  3. Observing that Scalzi financially shut out 500+ authors does not assume that Tor is simply pissing away that $3.4 million. Those authors are now shut out whether Scalzi sells millions of books or none at all. If Tor is pissing away that $3.4 million, it is the authors now being published by Tor who will be shut out in the future. Tor is literally betting their careers on Scalzi. I expect some will like that gamble, others not so much.
  4. The opportunity cost of a choice is the value of the best alternative forgone, in a situation in which a choice needs to be made between several mutually exclusive alternatives given limited resources. We’ve already established that Tor’s resources are limited. So, the question is not whether John Scalzi’s next 13 books “sell a hell of a lot of copies, and earn Tor significant profits”, but if those 13 books will sell MORE copies, and earn Tor MORE significant profits, than the books from other authors Tor otherwise might have signed.
  5. Tor bought Scalzi’s various one-and-done appearances on the oft-gamed NYT Bestseller list. The idea that Fuzzy Nation was ever more popular than Old Man’s War
    or sold more copies is downright risible. To cite Tor’s past
    marketing efforts as justification for the new authors it has decided not to publish is a category error. It’s a sunk cost of trivial
    benefit going forward, not that Hines likely knows what a “sunk cost” is. As for the appeal to the Hugo Award, I’m going to give McCreepy the benefit of the doubt and assume that’s sarcasm.

Remember, each new author doesn’t have to outsell Scalzi to generate opportunity cost. The breakeven on units for each book is 2.5 percent of Scalzi’s individual book sales. Assuming the average new Tor writer sells 10,000 books, (and the biggest publisher in SF had better be able to sell that many) that means each of the 13 Scalzi books has to sell at least 402,308 copies for Tor to break even on the opportunity cost from a reasonable unit sales perspective. And each new author who proves capable of selling more than 10k copies only makes the decision that much worse for Tor. You will notice that none of the Scalzi allies attempting to defend the deal ever bother to work through the actual math of it, preferring to rely instead on general phrases like “a hell of a lot”.

However, there are two very real and even significant justifications for preferring 13 John Scalzi
books to 523 new author books even if the future sales estimates tend to favor the latter. Hines doesn’t bring them up, presumably because they highlight my point
about how there are 3.4 million reasons the deal is shutting out new authors. It is more expensive, and
therefore less profitable, to edit, print, and distribute 523 different
authors than one. Even if we use the EFA’s very conservative guidelines and assume an unrealistically low production amount of $5,000 per book, those 523 authors would cost Tor at least $3 million more in production costs than producing John Scalzi’s 13 books will.

Furthermore, there are a limited number of available slots in the retail channels, even for Tor. Barnes & Noble is not going to endcap 500 different Tor books; they probably don’t even carry that many in total. But again, this supports my larger point about how the increased centralization of traditional publishing tends to lock out new authors and midlist authors alike. That was why I stopped even talking to traditional publishers years ago; as a midlist author who sold 30k to 40k copies per book, I knew I was of little interest to them. These days, if you can’t at least threaten six digits in your two chances at publication, you will need to be a gatekeeper’s pet in order to stay in traditional print for long. The dirty little secret of traditional publishing is that its profits are no less dependent upon constant churn than the average stockbrokerage.

And this points to the best part of what increasingly looks like a pretty good deal for Scalzi: he is locking in Tor’s marketing focus on his behalf, although again, at the expense of its other authors. And that, combined with what we have learned about Pan Macmillan’s unhappiness with its editorial product in the UK, leads me to suspect that PNH is feeling the heat from above and has therefore thrown a bit of a Hail Mary in order to buy himself more time.

Since we’re on the subject of openly clueless statements about me at File 770, let’s address two of their creative takes on theology while we’re at it:

CPaca on June 1, 2015 at 3:27 pm said:
VD isn’t a Christian, despite claiming he is. The belief that Satan rules the world instead of God is some form of Christian Gnostic heresy. One has to wonder if Wright is fully aware of who he’s hanging out with.

If this were a science fiction novel, the dialogue would end here, with the Atheist Who Knows the Bible Better than the Bible-Thumping Bigot gloriously triumphing. Of course, this isn’t a science fiction novel, and in fact, their knowledge of Christianity literally doesn’t rise to the level of Out of the Silent Planet. Do they not even understand what “Silent Planet” means? Do they not truly not understand the entire purpose of the Word made flesh, much less the Crucifixion?

The belief that Satan rules the world is the very essence of Christianity!

Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.” Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’
-Matthew 4:1-11


But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.  When he comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment:  about sin, because people do not believe in me;  about righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer;  and about judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned.
– John 16:7-11

The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
– 2nd Corinthians 4:4

Stevie on June 1, 2015 at 3:56 pm said:
I think we agree that VD is not a Christian; I think that VD would happily abandon his not very good grasp of Gnosticism on the grounds of ‘rhetoric’, or ‘Aristotle’, or whatever flavour of evasion he happens to feel like at any given time. Given his obsessive hatred of John Scalzi I suspect that VD cheers himself up by imagining him as ‘left behind’.

Sadly, Wright’s track record as a professed Christian suggests that he doesn’t understand Christianity either; his appalling outburst about Terry Pratchett is wholly incompatible with Christ’s commandment that we should love each other. Wright appears to be under the impression that Christ really didn’t understand being God, and that Wright has much better ideas as to what God actually wants than the reprobate who spent his time with the poor, the sick, the hungry, and consorted with dreadful people like tax collectors…

I can’t abandon what I don’t have. And as for the idea that John Wright’s rejection of the late Pratchett’s euthanasia activism is somehow incompatible with Christianity, that is simply false. Terry Pratchett was not only, as Neil Gaiman described him, a very angry man, he was a very wicked and cowardly man.

You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.
– Hebrews 1:9

But it is true that as a man outside the Church, we should not judge him; God will do that. In any event, the extent and intensity of their hatred for me should suffice to testify as to whether I am a Christian or not.

If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.
–  John 15:17-19

Let them hate. I never forget who they hate first and foremost.

Evolution or equality

There can be only one… at most.

It is impossible to simultaneously understand the theory of evolution and to believe in blank-slate cognitive equality among human groups of different continental origins.

Both propositions—evolution and equality—cannot simultaneously be true. You have to pick one. Choose wisely, because you can’t have both.

Either evolution is a real and ongoing process that has rendered different groups with different mean aptitudes, or we’re all equal—and thus all measurable group disparities in things such as income and intelligence are due to unfairness, hatred, injustice, and flat-out stinking evil.

Yet against all logic and evidence and propelled purely by the smarmiest sort of saccharine emotionality that has ever been shit-sprayed out of human hearts, modern progressives insist that these two fundamentally contradictory belief systems are simultaneously true.
“What sort of person who claims to believe in evolution would deny its fundamental role in shaping human history?”

They insist that evolution is real and that only a dumb hillbilly would not believe in it. But they also insist that evolution had nothing to do with quantifiable disparities between groups in brain size and intelligence, and even if those dumb apelike hillbillies consistently score higher on intelligence tests than your average nonwhite hood rat, well, then, you’re dumb—and evil—for even noticing.

Now, I happen to be skeptical of one and outright reject both the existence and the possibility of the other. But that is an intellectually consistent position. Subscribing to both evolution and equality is intrinsically nonsensical.

The descent of literary criticism

Natalie Luhrs will be live-tweeting her feelz about THE WAR IN HEAVEN, beginning June 11. I wonder if she’ll like it?:

Before Theodore “Vox Day” Beale was the central figure in the Sad/Rabid Puppies Hugo Awards hacking, he wrote a series of religious-inspired fantasy novels for Pocket Books. And blogger Natalie Luhrs is going to live-tweet his debut novel, Eternal Warriors: The War in Heaven, for charity.

Here’s how it works: You donate money to RAINN, a charity that operates the National Sexual Assault Hotline. (Or to a similar organization in your own country.) You send proof of your donation to Luhrs. And for every $5 you donate, Luhrs will livetweet a page of the book, starting June 11 with the hashtag #readingVD. She will also republish her tweets, with additional commentary, on a chapter-by-chapter basis, on her site, Pretty-Terrible. If people raise $2,000, she’ll do the entire book. (She is currently at $920.)

Yeah, probably not. I’d be considerably more impressed if she’d chosen A THRONE OF BONES instead. And it’s kind of a pity that she didn’t choose THE WORLD IN SHADOW, I would have been genuinely interested to see her reaction to that. I’m rather dubious that 300 tweets that alternate between snarking about how bad the writing is and how stupid the author is will prove to be very entertaining for long.

The post-profit corporation

Starbucks is more interested in cultural revolution than corporate profits:

During the meeting, founder of Corporate Morality Action Center, Tom Stobhar, expressed concerns about the company’s support of homosexual marriage. He explained that the company’s stance affected shareholder earnings after Starbucks backed efforts to legalize same-sex “marriage” last year.  The company’s announcement had resulted in boycotts against the billion-dollar coffee franchise.

Trobhar stated, “In the first full quarter after this boycott was announced, our sales and earnings — shall we say politely — were a bit disappointing.”

 Starbucks CEO, Howard Schultz, promptly rebounded after Trobhar and replied, “Not every decision is an economic decision. Despite the fact that you recite statistics that are narrow in time, we did provide a 38% shareholder return over the last year. I don’t know how many things you invest in, but I would suspect not many things, companies, products, investments have returned 38% over the last 12 months. Having said that, it is not an economic decision to me. The lens in which we are making that decision is through the lens of our people. We employ over 200,000 people in this company, and we want to embrace diversity — of all kinds. If you feel, respectfully, that you can get a higher return than the 38% you got last year, it’s a free country. You can sell your shares in Starbucks and buy shares in another company. Thank you very much.”

I don’t support Starbucks anyway because they burn their coffee, but keep this in mind the next time someone tells you to ignore the evidence of your eyes because corporations are only interested in money. That’s simply not true, as SJW executives are perfectly happy to sacrifice corporate profits for their ideological agenda.

Diversity is a social cancer. It eventually destroys everything it infests. The phrase “Our diversity is our strength” is every bit as self-contradictory and Orwellian as “War is Peace” and “Black is White”.

Mailvox: a collection of questions

A new reader has a boatload of questions. This is merely the first half. I’ll address the other half later this week:

First time e-mail correspondent here, as well as a reader of your blog for about a month-and-a-half now. My religious beliefs could best be described as “conflicted”, or “confused”, or “I’m not even 100% sure what I believe but I’m trying to find out”. My political ideologies and other personal beliefs are in a similar state of flux, and thus, all four of my questions are asked mostly out of curiosity, partly because I know you’ll give a good answer (Should you choose to respond), and partly because you (unlike quite a few people) cite your sources.

Oh, and I read The Irrational Atheist from front to back. Twice. Once when I was 14, the old man gave me TIA to read, because that was when I was really asking the hard questions about my childhood faith and wondering whether or not the godless teenagers that went to high school with me had a point or not, but it was a bit intellectually above me and I didn’t really absorb the arguments presented all that well. Now, at the tender age of 20, having read the book a second time, I can say with absolute confidence: They really, really didn’t. And having seen what passes for the intellectual atheist, I can also say with the same confidence: Whatever my religious beliefs turn out to be in the future, I certainly never want to turn out like THAT.

1. Given the rather thorny issue of homosexuality, this isn’t really one question but several related ones. I’ve read your beliefs that homosexuality is an evil, but not really much beyond that. (Others have claimed that you said it’s a birth defect, but I’m aware that’s not the case. I recognize a media smear campaign when I see one) So, I have a few questions to pin down exactly what you think about it:

a) Do you believe all evils are inherently equal? b) Do you feel that homosexuality equals coveting your neighbor’s possessions equals adultery equals murder? c)Is there a set hierarchy? d)Or does God judge such things on a case by case basis, acting in the role of The Universal Judge?

e)Do you believe that homosexuality is a choice? The act itself clearly is, but the desire as well? Many gay people that I’ve personally spoken to claim they would have “opted out” if they had been given a choice in the matter, not necessarily out of any love for Jesus Christ (Although there are those that do), but a desire to be normal and get through the day unmolested. f) If the desire is not a choice, if it is something that is designated at birth, then how does this relate to the Christian view of homosexuality, which seems to view it as an active choice that the perpetrator can choose to stop doing at any time?

g) Do you know of any testimonial or historical evidence that indicates that a person who is gay can become straight by means of conversion, prayer, or worship of the Christian God? I am aware of testimony that such prayer and worship that has cured diseases, addictions, psychological issues, ended crippling pain, and even cured physical birth defects like limps or both legs being different lengths. Wouldn’t it then follow, that such a God would be capable of ending a homosexual desire to those who asked? Wouldn’t it then follow that such a God would WANT to do so, to remove evil desires from those who wish to have them removed?

h) Hypothetically speaking, if you had turned out to have a primarily (or even exclusive) male sexual preference, how do you believe this would have affected your belief and worship of Jesus Christ? i) Do you think you would attempt to be chaste? j) Would you still denounce the behavior as evil? k) Would you even renounce your worship of God altogether?

I have no idea what the young man’s reason for asking these questions might be and I don’t see any need for anyone to play any guessing games in that regard. After all, it could be anything from an inexplicable craving for Erasure to an overreliance on the philosophy of Macklemore. I will admit that I found it rather amusing to see how some reacted so badly to the “birth defect” comment, considering that it is the preferred alternative explanation to abnormal sexual orientation being a matter of choice. Any abnormality that renders a living being considerably less fit by virtue of presenting a reproductive handicap, be it physical or psychological, must be regarded as a material defect by anyone who subscribes to TENS, and if we are to believe that homosexuality is determined in the prenatal state, then “birth defect” is exactly what gay activists have been proclaiming homosexuality to be for decades. By literal definition from Wikipedia: “Congenital disorder, also known as congenital disease or birth defect, is a condition existing at or before birth regardless of cause.”

I’d think people would be more considerably concerned that one could also make an alarmingly strong case for high cognitive capacity being a congenital disorder in modern society on this basis, but then, we mustn’t deny the rainbow crowd their dramatics.

a) No. All evils are not equal, either in terms of their consequences or the way in which we are informed God regards them. b) No. In addition to the 10 Commandments being specified, Jesus explained that one Commandment was the most important one. c) There does not appear to be a strictly ordered A-Z hierarchy. d) Yes, as we are told God knows and judges what is in a man’s heart.

e) I believe all actions are choices, though not necessarily conscious and definitely not always rational. And I believe some inclinations are innate. But it’s not a binary situation, as our choices lead to consequential inclinations we would not possess had we made different choices. It’s quite clear, if you happen to know any homosexuals, that some come to their orientation very naturally, others choose it for a variety of reasons, and still others have it thrust upon them by others.

f) This is a misunderstanding of the Christian perspective. We all have evil inclinations. We all experience temptation. What tempts you does not tempt me, and vice-versa. But we are all responsible for resisting whatever temptations happen to call to us.

g) Yes, I have known people who no longer act on their homosexual inclinations and some who say they are no longer troubled by them. Not all of them are Christian, as it happens. I believe in a tantiscient God who can do whatever He decides to do. But we live on the Silent Planet, in a world that He does not rule, a world that is riddled with evil, and so it should be no surprise that evils and misfortunes continue to be inflicted upon us by its ruling power. That’s why we ask, why we pray, that His will be done, on Earth, as it is in Heaven, because for the most part it is not being done that way right now on Earth. (Note to Team Calvin: not now.) If it was, we wouldn’t need to ask for it.

h) Very little, considering that I was a hedonistic pagan agnostic with a Porsche and a record contract. Temptation is temptation. i) Yes. j) Yes. There are plenty of things that I would very much like to do that I have no problem describing as evil and rejecting on that basis. k) No chance.

There is a reason that Christianity is described as the hard and narrow path. It’s not easy. It’s not supposed to be easy. Don’t listen to the idiots who claim that Jesus Christ will solve all your problems and make you rich and cure your hangnails if you only say the magic words. They’re just scam artists trying to sell you something. Christianity isn’t Candyland, it is a very dark and terrible vision of a very scary place, of a universe that isn’t merely indifferent to you, but is actively seeking to destroy you, body and soul.

And if that doesn’t better reflect the reality we observe around us than every other philosophical and religious creed you’ve ever encountered, then I have to very seriously question whether you are paying attention to the world around you. To reject that reality because you really, really, really want to nail the hot little brunette in the miniskirt who is making eyes at you isn’t even wrong, it’s category error.

As for the issues of God’s inclination and ability to address orientational temptation, I think you would be much better off listening to this man on the subject than to me:

The can resists the kickers

Greece appears almost ready to do what they should have done years ago and default:

Greek premier Alexis Tsipras has accused Europe’s creditor powers of issuing “absurd demands” and come close to warning that his far-Left government will detonate a pan-European political and strategic crisis if pushed any further.

Writing for Le Monde in a tone of furious defiance after the latest set of talks reached an impasse, Mr Tsipras said the eurozone’s dominant players were by degrees bringing about the “complete abolition of democracy in Europe” and were ushering in a technocratic monstrosity with powers to subjugate states that refuse to accept the “doctrines of extreme neoliberalism”.

“For those countries that refuse to bow to the new authority, the solution will be simple: Harsh punishment. Judging from the present circumstances, it appears that this new European power is being constructed, with Greece being the first victim,” he said.

The Greek leader, head of the radical-Left Syriza government, issued a stark warning that his country will not submit to these demands and will instead take action “to entirely transform the economic and political balances throughout the West.”

Alexis Tsipras made his thoughts known in a piece for Le Monde, the French newspaper

“If some, however, think or want to believe that this decision concerns only Greece, they are making a grave mistake. I would suggest that they re-read Hemingway’s masterpiece, “For Whom the Bell Tolls”,” he said.

Hey, the debt-funded Euro party was fun. But it’s over. Now it’s time to default, bring back the drachma, and return to the world of real world economics.

367

In answer to a question at File 770:

I suspect the Rabids aren’t fans of SF so much as they are “members of the cult of Vox Day.” Partly, this is the only thing that truly seems to explain the works on the slate — the ones that aren’t published by Beale’s own press anyway — the point isn’t that they are any particular thing, the point is that he chose them, and there they are.

I don’t know what that implies for the future. Beale himself obviously believes in nursing a grudge to the end of time, so HE’S not going anywhere. But how many minions does he actually have? What’s their staying power? Are they really going to stay interested enough to do this again next year?

There are exactly 367 Vile Faceless Minions, as it happens, in addition to an unknown quantity of Rabid Puppies, Dread Ilk, and Ilk.

As to what their staying power is, and if they are really going to stay interested enough to do this again next year, I have ordered Malwyn and her colleagues to unmuzzle them and thereby permit them to speak for themselves, if they so wish.

I am kind.