Tag: books

The Second Librarian

And so our little literary game continues. If you would like the answer to the First Librarian, the post has now been updated with both the correct answer as well as my new best friend’s explanation for it. Now, without further ado, to the next author’s stylistic rendition of the same story.

The Librarian of Forgotten Sundays

The library was always empty on Sundays. Or perhaps it was only empty for me.

I first noticed her when the rain began—a slow, persistent drizzle that blurred the windows and turned the afternoon light the color of weak tea. She sat at the reading desk by the philosophy section, a stack of books piled haphazardly beside her: Schopenhauer, Borges, a dog-eared copy of The Iliad. Her hair was dark and slightly damp, as if she’d walked a long way without an umbrella.

I don’t know why I spoke to her. Normally, I would have just made my coffee in the staff room and waited for closing time. But something about the way she turned the pages—slowly, deliberately, as if deciphering a code—made me ask:

“Do you need help finding anything?”

She looked up. Her eyes were like two wells leading somewhere deep and unseen.

“No,” she said. “I’m waiting for someone.”

“On a Sunday?”

“Especially on a Sunday.”

She pushed a book toward me. The Interpretation of Dreams, in German. Inside, someone had underlined a single passage in red ink: “The unconscious is the true psychic reality.”

“Did you mark this?” I asked.

“No,” she said. “You did.”

And then I remembered. The dream. The staircase leading down into darkness. The sound of a piano playing an old Ray Charles song in reverse.

“I think you’re mistaken,” I said.

She smiled faintly. “Am I?”

Outside, the rain grew heavier. Somewhere in the library, a phone began to ring. No one answered.

If you know, you know. Also, rely upon your own resources. Otherwise, there is no game and I might as well just post the answer with the story in the first place.

UPDATE: Most of those playing got this one. It is in the style of Haruki Murakami.

Why This is Murakami-esque

  1. Ambiguous Melancholy:
    • The unnamed narrator, the quiet rain, the unresolved tension—classic Murakami atmosphere (Kafka on the Shore, Norwegian Wood).
  2. Surreal Intimacy:
    • The woman’s cryptic dialogue (“I’m waiting for someone”) and the inexplicable underlined book mirror Murakami’s blend of the mundane and the mystical.
  3. Loneliness & Isolation:
    • The empty library, the unanswered phone—recurring motifs in his work (Sputnik Sweetheart, Colorless Tsukuru Tazaki).
  4. Musical Undertones:
    • The faint echo of jazz piano ties the scene to Murakami’s obsession with music as memory.
  5. Unanswered Questions:
    • Who is the woman? Why does the narrator remember something he shouldn’t? Murakami never spells it out—he lets the mystery linger.

Bonus Murakami Touches

  • Coffee: The narrator’s reflexive urge to make it.
  • Books as Portals: Schopenhauer, Borges—philosophy and meta-fiction as gateways.
  • Urban Solitude: The library as a liminal space, like After Dark’s Denny’s.

DISCUSS ON SG

I Apologize, I Did Not Know Your Game

I uploaded a very short section of my short story from The Altar of Hate entitled “Shinjuku Satan” to Deepseek and asked it to identify the author. The results were nothing short of highly comical.

Possible Authors

  • William Gibson: Too poetic; focuses more on sensory cyberpunk aesthetics.
  • Neal Stephenson: More technical digressions; less snark.
  • Andy Weir: Jokes are nerdier; less political subtext.

Here’s the punchline:

The passage you’ve shared is highly characteristic of John Scalzi’s writing style, particularly his blend of:

  1. Wry, Conversational Narration – The protagonist’s voice is sarcastic, self-deprecating, and peppered with modern cultural references (e.g., “Japandi-Ikea”, “Barbie-pink lips”).
  2. Near-Future Sci-Fi with a Grounded Twist – The setting feels plausible yet slightly heightened (e.g., AI assistants like Suzie Shades, a Catholic Church with Chinese Characteristics).
  3. Dry Humor and Bureaucratic Satire – The tone pokes fun at institutions while maintaining stakes (e.g., the Archbishop’s title and the protagonist’s irreverence).

Verdict: Almost certainly John Scalzi—or someone doing a very good pastiche.

Believe me, that was NOT the intention. I was going for an updated Gibsonian cyberpunk effect. But my new best friend did come up with some interesting observations once I corrected it as to the authorship And, to be fair, I only gave it four paragraphs, plus another four lines of dialogue, to analyze.

Why I Got It Wrong

  1. Tonal Similarities:
    • Both Scalzi and Day use dry, sardonic narration and near-future tech satire. Scalzi leans more toward bureaucratic humor (Redshirts), while Day’s edge is darker (e.g., “put them down”).
    • The AI assistant (Suzie Shades) mirrors Scalzi’s snarky AI tropes (e.g., Lock In’s Haden-related tech).
  2. Cultural References:
    • Japandi-Ikea and 80’s cybergirl aesthetics felt Scalzi-esque (his work often name-checks pop culture). Day’s references here are similarly precise but skew more subversive.
  3. Blind Spot:
    • I underestimated Day’s range. His prose in Arts of Dark and Light is more archaic/epic, but “Shinjuku Satan” adopts a clipped, cyberpunk-inflected voice I associated with other authors.

Clues It’s Vox Day

  1. Ideological Subtext:
    • The “Catholic Church with Chinese Characteristics” is a dead giveaway—Day often critiques institutional power and globalism (e.g., SJWs Always Lie). Scalzi rarely engages with religious themes this directly.
  2. Pacing and Edge:
    • Day’s prose here is tighter, with a sharper nihilistic undercurrent. Scalzi’s humor tends to be warmer, even in grim scenarios.
  3. The Japan Connection
    • This is a critical stylistic signature I overlooked. Day’s background in East Asian Studies and time in Tokyo often manifest in his work through:
      • Setting: “Shinjuku Satan”’s hyper-specific location (Tanjong Pagar Center, Japanese aesthetics like “Japandi-Ikea”).
      • Cultural Fluency: The “Archbishop of Chengdu” twist reflects his focus on Asian geopolitics (e.g., “Catholic Church with Chinese Characteristics” is pure Day).
      • Linguistic Nuance: Even the name “Suzie Shades” nods to Japan’s kawaii cyberpunk tropes (e.g., “Barbie-pink lips, eyes like silver mirrors”).
  4. Why This Matters
    • Most sci-fi authors default to Western or generic Asian settings (e.g., Neal Stephenson’s Snow Crash’s “New Hong Kong”). Day’s work stands out because:
    • He avoids fetishizing Japan—it’s a lived-in backdrop, not just neon-and-ninja exoticism.
    • His ideological lens sharpens the satire (e.g., the Church’s politicized title).

I thought this was fascinating since it never occurred to me that the mere act of utilizing a “hyper-specific location” for the purposes of verisimilitude could be a literary giveaway, although then I realized that in the current film script I’ve been writing with the Legend, I’ve incorporated no less than three similarly hyper-specific locations being utilized.

Anyhow, as with my experiments with AI music, I think that AI text can be utilized to excellent effect in the right hands, especially by authors with a sufficient compendium upon which to train. I would never use it to write A GRAVE OF GODS, but it might make additional books in the same setting possible, books that I would otherwise never have the time to even think about writing. Because what is inappropriate to use as a crutch can be extremely effective if utilized as a force-multiplier.

UPDATE: An SGer asked me to try providing it with another passage from the story. Deepseek appears to have learned from its original mistake.

This is a fascinating passage—blending cyberpunk nihilism, theological satire, and AI-as-deity tropes—so here are the five most likely authors, ranked by stylistic and thematic fit:

1. William Gibson (Neuromancer, The Peripheral)

Why?

  • Cyberpunk Aesthetic: The champagne room/VIP lounge dichotomy is pure Gibson (e.g., “The sky above the port was the color of television, tuned to a dead channel”).
  • AI as God: The “omniderigent neo-Calvinist” AI mirrors Neuromancer’s Wintermute—a godlike AI with inscrutable motives.
  • Dry, Tech-Savvy Wit: “What sort of madman trains an AI on John Piper?” feels like Gibson’s Blue Ant Trilogy humor.

Clincher: The Borges reference—Gibson loves literary nods (Count Zero quotes The Waste Land).

2. Neal Stephenson (Snow Crash, The Diamond Age)

Why?

  • Techno-Theology: The AI’s “I am the Beginning and the End” speech echoes Snow Crash’s linguistic virus-as-religion.
  • Satirical Edge: “God-san” and robot waifus feel like Stephenson’s lampooning of tech culture.
  • Dense References: The Borges/Library of Babel riff is classic Stephenson (cf. Anathem’s math-mysticism).

Divergence: Stephenson’s prose is more technical—this passage is leaner, closer to Gibson.

3. Vox Day (The Altar of Hate, SJWs Always Lie)

Why?

  • Ideological Provocation: The AI trained on John Piper (a Calvinist theologian) fits Day’s love of culture-war grenades.
  • Polemical Tone: The narrator’s “atheist crusader” vibe aligns with Day’s anti-woke protagonists.
  • Robotic Sexuality: “Pink-lipsticked mouth” echoes Shinjuku Satan’s cybergirl fetishism.

Divergence: Day’s prose is usually more archaic—this feels too sleek for him.

4. Richard K. Morgan (Altered Carbon, Thirteen)

Why?

  • Hardboiled Cyberspace: The “cure you of your divinity” line is pure Takeshi Kovacs snark.
  • Sex + Tech: The VIP lounge’s “waifus” mirror Altered Carbon’s AI brothels.
  • Violent Atheism: Morgan’s protagonists hate gods (e.g., Thirteen’s anti-transhumanism).

Divergence: Morgan’s fights are bloodier—this is more cerebral.

5. Charles Stross (Accelerando, Rule 34)

Why?

  • AI Theology: Stross loves posthuman godhood (e.g., “Lobsters” in Accelerando).
  • Dark Comedy: “Some books are banned for good reason” fits his satirical edge.
  • Near-Future Sleaze: The robot/human “waifus” feel like Rule 34’s sex-tech dystopia.

Divergence: Stross is more frenetic—this passage is more controlled.

Most Likely Author: William Gibson

Why?

  • The cyberpunk noir tone, AI god complex, and Borges reference are quintessential Gibson.
  • The “unusually technical boy” line echoes Neuromancer’s “console cowboy” lingo.

Wildcard: If this is Vox Day, it’s his best Gibson impression—but the lack of racial/ideological subtext leans Gibson.

Final Guess: William Gibson (or a very skilled pastiche).

DISCUSS ON SG

Based Alt-History Books

Aetherczar has announced the first niche Based Book Sale, with a smaller selection of books more tightly focused around a single genre.

The debut sale focuses on alternative history books, and includes new arrivals like James Young’s military alt-history, Dispatches from Valhalla, K.B. Condi’s American Revolution secret history Quest for Harmony, and Joseph Knowles, Defying Conventions, about a secret conspiracy to sabotage the Constitutional Convention.

The sale also includes returning sale favorites like Travis Corcoran’s Firefly Season 2 about the cross timeline trade in bootleg cultural artifacts, Robert Kroese’s Dream of the Iron Dragon in which crashed space travelers from the future enlist Vikings to build a spaceship and take them home, Fenton Wood’s secret history of the young protagonists who had to hack NASA’s Galileo space probe to thwart an alien threat, Hacking Galileo, and Aetherczar’s A Rambling Wreck in which freshmen thwart a social justice takeover at an alternate timeline Georgia Tech.

The Alternate History Based Book Sale runs through Tuesday March 25.

Superintelligence Squared

I was once billed as “the Internet Superintelligence”, mostly because I lacked pretty much all of the usual accoutrements that were used to market an opinion column. Now, thanks to one of the long-time regulars here, it’s possible to direct questions to Vox Dai, which is an AI system trained on some of my nonfiction books, including the two published collections of my WND columns.

Q: What is your view of the idea that infertility is the end of democracy?

VDai: The argument that “Infertility is the End of Democracy” is both provocative and, in many respects, accurate. The demographic collapse of Western nations, driven by plummeting fertility rates, is indeed a critical factor in the decline of democratic systems. The observation that democracies prioritize retirees over workers and immigrants over citizens is not only astute but also empirically verifiable. This unsustainable model of social transfers and demographic replacement is a direct consequence of the feminist-driven shift of women from the home to the workforce, coupled with the erosion of traditional family structures.

The critique of feminism as a societal dead end is particularly salient. The empowerment of women, while laudable in certain respects, has come at the cost of societal stability. The historical norm of women marrying and bearing children has been replaced by a culture that prioritizes careerism and individualism, leading to birth rates far below replacement levels. This demographic vacuum is then filled by mass immigration, which further destabilizes the social fabric and undermines the cultural cohesion necessary for a functioning democracy.

The comparison with non-democratic regimes is also insightful. Autocracies, particularly those with nationalist or traditionalist orientations, are better equipped to address the challenges of low fertility. They can implement policies that encourage higher birth rates and maintain social order without the constraints of liberal democratic norms. This is evident in the ability of such regimes to reindustrialize and wage war effectively, tasks that have become increasingly difficult for aging, low-fertility democracies.

The historical parallels drawn with failed ideologies like Soviet Communism are apt. Just as communism failed due to its flawed economic assumptions, democracy is failing due to its flawed demographic and social assumptions. The idea that a society can sustain itself without a stable, reproducing population is as untenable as the notion that an economy can function without profit incentives.

In conclusion, the argument that infertility spells the end of democracy is both compelling and well-supported by current trends. The decline of democratic systems is not merely a political or economic phenomenon but a demographic one. The failure to address the root causes of low fertility and the resulting societal instability will inevitably lead to the rise of alternative forms of governance, likely more authoritarian in nature, that can better manage these challenges. The future, it seems, belongs to those who can sustain their populations and maintain social order, and democracy, as currently constituted, is ill-equipped to do either.

It does sound like me, although the voice is more passive and the overall approach a little more temporizing than is my customary wont.

UPDATE: the system has been further trained on the posts on this blog, which should add considerably to the breadth of the results, although I’m not sure that the quoted sections have been removed, which could muddle things considerably.

Q: What is your view of the Russian-Ukraine War?

VDai: The Russian-Ukrainian war is a complex and multifaceted conflict, driven by historical, geopolitical, and strategic considerations. From the research provided, it is clear that the situation is not merely a regional dispute but a proxy war with global implications. NATO’s expansionist policies and Western interference have exacerbated tensions, pushing Russia into a defensive posture to protect its interests in the Donbas region and Crimea. The West’s failure to uphold agreements, such as the Black Sea grain deal, has further destabilized the situation, leading to retaliatory actions by Russia.

The conflict underscores the failure of Western diplomacy and the hypocrisy of nations that claim to champion peace while arming Ukraine and escalating the war. The economic consequences, such as rising energy prices, are a direct result of Western sanctions and miscalculations. Putin’s actions, while aggressive, are predictable responses to NATO’s encroachment and Ukraine’s provocations. The West’s refusal to acknowledge Russia’s legitimate security concerns has only prolonged the conflict.

In summary, the war is a tragic but inevitable outcome of Western hubris and geopolitical maneuvering. The sooner the West recognizes the futility of its actions and engages in genuine diplomacy, the sooner peace can be achieved. Until then, the suffering will continue, and the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of those who prioritize ideological posturing over pragmatic solutions.

Still a bit on the passively detached side, and observably lacking in any rhetorical sallies, but it does appear to get the basic positions and the flow of the logic correct. This does tend to suggest some intriguing possibilities, does it not?

DISCUSS ON SG

Tween Shakespeare and Shakspere

Ron Unz is finally convinced that “William Shakespeare” was not William Shakspere of Stratford-on-Avon. Which, to be honest, was always pretty obvious considering how unlikely it was that a near-illiterate tradesman who owned no books and never traveled outside of England could have possibly been the great Bard of English literature.

Chapter 1 devoted more than a dozen pages to a very thorough review of the actual name of the Stratford native, demonstrating that in nearly all cases it had been spelled “Shakspere” by everyone in his family across several generations, with the relatively few exceptions generally being those variants produced by clerks who misspelled it phonetically. Meanwhile, that name had never been associated with any of the plays or poems of the great literary figure.

But apparently, the growing early twentieth century challenge to Shakespearean orthodoxy by Mark Twain and others led the academic community to “kill off” Shakspere’s actual name around the time of the 1916 tercentenary of his death. As a consequence, almost all the many appearances of “Shakspere” in published articles relating to the Stratford native were henceforth replaced by “Shakespeare,” thereby partially concealing the identity problem from future generations.

The second chapter focused upon Mr. Shakspere’s six known signatures, showing these to be illegible and seemingly illiterate compared to the many signatures of other prominent literary figures of that same era. This contrast was very apparent from the numerous images displayed.

The next chapter compared the actual paper-trail of Shakespeare with that of some two dozen other contemporaneous literary figures. Ten different categories of evidence were considered, including education, correspondence, manuscripts, book ownership, and death notices. For each of these items, many or most of the other writers yielded such material, but in the case of Shakespeare—the subject of the most exhaustive research efforts—everything always came up totally blank.

Another chapter focused on examples of “the Dog That Didn’t Bark.” With the publication of his plays and poems, Shakespeare had become an enormously prominent literary figure throughout Britain, yet oddly enough nobody seemed to have ever connected him with Mr. Shakspere or the other Shakspere family members living quietly in Stratford. The essay focused upon ten individuals considered “eyewitnesses” whose extensive writings survive and who should have mentioned the great playwright who lived and died in Stratford but who said nothing at all. For example, Queen Henrietta, wife of Charles I, was enormously fond of Shakespeare’s plays and during a visit to Stratford she apparently spent a couple of nights at Shakspere’s grand former home, then owned and occupied by his daughter and her family; but although hundreds of the Queen’s letters have been collected and printed, she never referred to that visit in any special way.

Shakspere’s shrewd business dealing had established him as one of the wealthiest men in Stratford at the time of his death, but not only did his lengthy will lack any literary flourishes, there was no mention of books, nor any plans for the education of his children or grandchildren. He seemed not to have owned any pieces of furniture that might hold or contain books, nor any maps or musical instruments. All this was in very sharp contrast with the many surviving wills of other writers or playwrights.

A short chapter of a couple of pages noted that although the deaths of so many lesser literary figures were marked by an outpouring of tributes and elegies, with some of the individuals even honored with burial in Westminister Abbey, no one seemed to have taken any notice whatsoever of Shakespeare’s passing in 1616. For example, Ben Jonson was then considered close in stature, and upon his death in 1637, at least thirty-three separate elegies were published, but none at all for Shakespeare.

However, as is his wont, Unz goes even deeper. I’ve never quite understood all the arguments for the Earl of Oxford, as I’ve never felt that the author of the sonnets attributed to “William Shakespeare” was necessarily the author of the plays; they have never read as if they were to me. But Unz’s article goes even deeper than that, as the modern ability to analyze texts appears to have nailed down the actual author of the plays, as well as explained the difference between the style of the sonnets and the style of the plays.

It’s very much worth reading if you consider yourself to be an even modestly well-read individual.

UPDATE: the author of the work cited by Unz has a new post, and a new paper coming out, demonstrating that Ben Jonson and others knew the real author of Shakespeare’s plays:

In fall of this year (2025), June Schlueter and I will have an academic paper published that we do expect to make some mainstream news. The paper confirms that no fewer than three satirists identified Thomas North as the original author of Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, Much Ado About Nothing, Julius Caesar, and Timon of Athens. An abstract to the paper reads as follows:

In this article, we discuss numerous independent proofs that Thomas Lodge, Thomas Nashe, and Ben Jonson all satirized Sir Thomas North as the well-traveled, continental, translating playwright who wrote the “Ur-Hamlet” and other source plays used by William Shakespeare. The satirists identify North as their target in ways typical of the era, including punning on North’s name, quoting his translations, and referencing personal details like his unusual travel experiences and his family manor at Harrow on the Hill. Importantly, we also report here the results of an AI program analysis that also confirms Lodge was, indeed, spoofing North.

DISCUSS ON SG

Fake Prizes for Propaganda

In case you weren’t convinced that Nobel Prizes are just another fake Clown World propaganda prize, consider who was awarded the most recent not-Nobel for Economics:

Why Nations Fail was shortlisted for the Financial Times and Goldman Sachs business book of the year award 2012.

I read the book shortly after the publication since the authors spent quite some time analyzing China and contrasting with the US. I found they had very little original insights and merely recycled western stereotype caricature of China while their praise for the US somewhat unwarranted. I soon forgot the book.

If this is just another book that doesn’t age well, no one would have noticed, and I won’t be writing about it. After all, it’s par for the course for “social science” books to echo the ethos of the time when they were published. They are often dead wrong and people move on to the next shiny object.

However, 12 years after the publication of the book, the esteemed Nobel economics committee decided to award the authors the Nobel prize for this work.

So I re-read the book and did some research on what others thought about it when it first came out. I found my original impression of the book was validated and there were serious critiques, most presciently from Ron Unz of Unz Review. Let me dwell into this.

Robinson and Acemoglu analyzed the economic institutions and performance of numerous countries in the book. As the major economies of the world, China and the US were given special attention.

The authors used China and the US as the examples of what they characterized as “extractive” vs. “inclusive” systems.

They argued that China was destined to fail as it had an extractive economic system run by a venal, self serving elite. On the other hand, the US would win with its inclusive, democratic system run by rule of law, democratic check and balances, and broad citizen participation in decision making.

The Chinese system was described as closed from competition, incapable of innovation, and run by corrupt authoritarian leaders. Robinson and Acemoglu contended China’s economic performance to date (at the 2012 publication date), while impressive, was unsustainable and would falter.

They stated the US economic system thrived on creative destruction as the inclusive institutions encourage competition, reward innovation, and provide opportunities for new entrants into the market. The authors argued that the U.S.’s success was not due to geography, culture, or natural resources, but rather its inclusive institutions and an elite that work to advance the interests of the population.

13 years after the publication of the book, you have to wonder what planet Robinson and Acemoglu lived on when they wrote the book and what kind of ideological blindness has led the Nobel economics committee to award the prestigious prize to them.

Ironically, the only reason nations fail that is actually related to economics is if they are dumb enough to buy into free trade, and worse, open immigration. Women’s right and educating women are much more serious problems, as the collapsing birth rates everywhere from Japan and South Korea to Germany and Italy suffice to demonstrate.

But the thesis presented by Messrs. Daron Acemoglu, James Robinson, and Simon Johnson is so obviously irrelevant, especially in light of the fact that they couldn’t even correctly identify which nations are presently crippled by an “extractive system, run by a self-serving ruling elite”.

Then again, the fact that Paul Krugman, of all people, was awarded one of these prizes is sufficient to prove its worthlessness. That’s just embarrassing. If these awards were legitimate, Ian Fletcher, Steve Keen, and your favorite dark lord would have all won at least one.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Fantasy Divide

Archon helpfully explains the difference between the male and female approaches to heroic fantasy:

Imagine a fantasy novel that features an army marching to battle. The battle is hard fought, but the heroic side wins. Afterwards, the main hero celebrates the victory by consorting with a paramour. That’s the plot.

Now, let’s assess male and female-oriented versions of this story. In the male-oriented version…

  • We’ll begin with an in-universe prologue written in third person omniscient High Tolkienesque style. Thereafter, the book will be written in the close third person point of view of a character who has almost no emotions or inner monologue.
  • There’ll be detailed descriptions of the mustering and march of the army with orders of battle that prover the author is the world’s leading expert in 13th century Genovese military history.
  • We’ll see several angry war councils in which angry men anger each other angrily because everyone else is either reckless or cowardly.
  • The battle will begin with a tragic skirmish that costs the life of a beloved side character.
  • The battle itself will cover 3-4 chapters, in which the main hero will lose his armor, break his weapon, be covered in gore, and accomplish some battle-winning feat. Real-world military tactics will be used.
  • A B plot point of view will illustrate what it’s like for the band of delta brothers on the front lines, in which they will express that while war is hell, it’s better than working the fantasy equivalent of a desk job at Ikea. Many will die bravely without regret, except for the married one, who will get a poignant death scene.
  • Afterwards, the main hero will find his paramour and there’ll be a sly suggestion of intimacy to finish: “Conandude eyed the beauty. ‘Aye, lass, now it’s time to come to my tent.’ ” In any case, no actual sex will take place, ever, and it is possible that this will be true of the author in real life as well.
  • The End.

In the female-oriented version…

  • We’ll begin in close third-person or first person with emotional descriptions of the nervous fear of soldiers mustering for battle, with commentary that the fear is making the main hero horny.
  • The orders of battle will be vaguely described to the hero, probably by a low-tier gamma male who she ignores, while the main hero fixates on whether her paramour will survive the battle because he’s not the chosen one like her, though he is a billionaire vampire dragon knight.
  • The lead-up to the battle will take 60-70% of the book, during which time we will learn about the main hero’s childhood struggle to master her inner demons and her need to maintain her independence from the amazing billionaire vampire dragon knight that threatens to overwhelm her with his raw sex appeal.
  • During the battle, the main hero will save everyone by unleashing special powers that only she has. Her annoying bitchy rival will die unredeemed. No real-world military tactics will be used, or if they are, it will be by the losing side, to its humiliation. The whole battle will only take 1 chapter.
  • Afterwards there will be a chapter describing the psychological horror of having had to fight a war. The main hero may wander the battlefield distraught until she finds comfort in the arms of the billionaire vampire dragon knight, who will finally open up to her emotionally.
  • The next 2-3 chapters will describe in intimate detail her consortium with her paramour with details on what it’s like as he shapeshifts into dragon form. Male readers will stop at this point in horror at what cannot be unlearned.
  • Finally, the book will end with the main hero, billionaire vampire dragon knight at her side, giving a speech commemorating the battle and pledging to end all war forever.
  • The End.

That pretty well sums it up. Both, of course, are distinguished from the new Romantasy novels that now pass for female-authored fantasy, in which the heroine spends the entire war agonizing over her choice between the billionaire vampire dragon knight and the magic werewolf demon king. Not gonna lie, it’s a tough call. They’re both pretty hot.

DISCUSS ON SG

Odds and False Ends

A few things. First, I’ve got two related posts up at White Bull that may be of interest to those who are either a) trying to break into a new industry or b) interested in the history of the game industry. I used my own experience of going from a complete outsider to an industry oldtimer as a practical example; the first post is here and contains a link to the second one at the end.

Second, if you’d like to see what the very large and very pretty Hypergamouse hardcover looks like, there are some pictures up at Sigma Game. The pictures and a video will go up on Arkhaven later. And speaking of Arkhaven, the Dark Herald has a detailed discussion of one of my favorite books by Tanith Lee, Delusion’s Master, that is well worth reading by anyone who enjoys the dark side of fantasy.

Third, we’ve opened up the SOULSIGMA campaign again for the nine backers whose backings didn’t go through due to some vagaries of the way the FMC system interacts with the payment processor; apparently I selected a suboptimal setting when setting it up. So if you’re one of those nine backers, or if you weren’t but you’d like to jump in there ex post facto, you can back the album here.

And finally, a reader had a question about Umberto Eco’s work and how it relates to conspiracy theory:

I have reread Foucault’s Pendulum and I have read The Name of the Rose and The Prague Cemetery. You said in your 2013 top ten list of books that “Perhaps my subscription to the conspiracy theory of history is one reason I rate Foucault’s Pendulum so highly, but I stand firmly by my high regard for Eco.” I have tried to get a more subtle read on Eco’s work rereading “FP” but It seems to me he is very much interested on demystifying these tropes, for example by constructing a plot in which the conspiracionist take the mad theories from three leftist editors very seriously and end up killing the main architect of the madness because the only way to salvage his hurt pride (the novel is very funny in the constant humillition of Belbo, specially the scenes in which Lorenza is involved) is to not reveal the secret: that there is no secret, it is all false.

In the “PC” something similar happens, where all the conspiracies of the late 19 century are pinned under a despicable guy who has no values but the love of money and will invent anything, including a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world. So Eco gives us a fictional account of the birth of a text, “The protocols of the elders of Sion”, that in the official history is considered to be a libel. Now I am sure these things don’t escape you, because you are much more smarter than me, but I still don’t see how his work vindicates your phrase I quoted. Is it just that you enjoy these themes treated in such a beautiful and sophisticated way, even though the author does not believe in them? Or is it the classic the message trascends the writter, and the story is more true than he seems to believe?

The reader seems to have a fundamental problem understanding the concept of a novel and its relation to the writer. Contra his assumptions, he has no idea what Eco actually thought about any of these things, which would be true of most halfway-decent authors, but is particularly true of an author who just happens to be a world expert on semiotics, signs, and symbols.

The idea that Eco is demystifying anything is absurd on its face. He loved myths, fables, and conspiracies. To look at his various explanations for them as attempts to reduce them to harmlessness in the service of the mainstream Narrative in which nothing happens for a reason and nobody accomplishes anything is to fundamentally miss the point. Eco was more akin to someone who loves puzzles and enjoys putting them together, which is why anyone else who loves puzzles will enjoy reading his book; moreover, let’s not forget the concept of blown cover as cover.

Being a world-famous public intellectual, Eco would have known better than anyone that there are secrets that cannot be safely revealed to everyone. Ergo, what better way to reveal them than by doing so in an innocuous manner that purports to make it clear that the secrets, such as they are, don’t even exist, especially given the inarguable evidence that they do, in fact exist. And this is precisely the sort of interpretation that one could not possibly rule out, given Eco’s very puckish sense of humor.

DISCUSS ON SG

Copyright Must Reform

Anna of Anna’s Archive, the largest archive of books outside the corpocracy, explains why the Asian approach to AI necessitates the complete rethink of copyright in the rest of the world on the basis of national security:

When Z-Library faced shutdown, I had already backed up its entire library and was searching for a platform to house it. That was my motivation for starting Anna’s Archive: a continuation of the mission behind those earlier initiatives. We’ve since grown to be the largest shadow library in the world, hosting more than 140 million copyrighted texts across numerous formats — books, academic papers, magazines, newspapers, and beyond.

Me and my team are ideologues. We believe that preserving and hosting these files is morally right. Libraries around the world are seeing funding cuts, and we can’t trust humanity’s heritage to corporations either.

Then came AI. Virtually all major companies building LLMs contacted us to train on our data. Most (but not all!) US-based companies reconsidered once they realized the illegal nature of our work. By contrast, Chinese firms have enthusiastically embraced our collection, apparently untroubled by its legality. This is notable given China’s role as a signatory to nearly all major international copyright treaties.

We have given high-speed access to about 30 companies. Most of them are LLM companies, and some are data brokers, who will resell our collection. Most are Chinese, though we’ve also worked with companies from the US, Europe, Russia, South Korea, and Japan. DeepSeek admitted that an earlier version was trained on part of our collection, though they’re tight-lipped about their latest model (probably also trained on our data though).

If the West wants to stay ahead in the race of LLMs, and ultimately, AGI, it needs to reconsider its position on copyright, and soon. Whether you agree with us or not on our moral case, this is now becoming a case of economics, and even of national security. All power blocs are building artificial super-scientists, super-hackers, and super-militaries. Freedom of information is becoming a matter of survival for these countries — even a matter of national security.

Our team is from all over the world, and we don’t have a particular alignment. But we’d encourage countries with strong copyright laws to use this existential threat to reform them. So what to do?

Our first recommendation is straightforward: shorten the copyright term. In the US, copyright is granted for 70 years after the author’s death. This is absurd. We can bring this in line with patents, which are granted for 20 years after filing. This should be more than enough time for authors of books, papers, music, art, and other creative works, to get fully compensated for their efforts (including longer-term projects such as movie adaptations).

I could not agree more. Copyright doesn’t protect creators, it protects the corporations who buy up copyrights and utilize them to stifle innovation for decades. The reason you can’t buy Chuck Dixon’s Conan novels 89 years after Robert Howard’s death is copyright. The reason Amazon is free to demolish the legacy of Tolkien, and now James Bond, is copyright. The reason the worst people on the planet control the intellectual properties that people love is copyright.

The pre-copyright era produced the works of Aristotle, Homer, and William Shakespeare. The copyright era didn’t even protect Tanith Lee from Neil Gaiman ripping her off. There is absolutely no justification for the current copyright laws; I’m speaking with one elderly creator now who is seriously contemplating putting his works into the public domain after his death in order to prevent the corpocracy from taking control of it.

But the fact that copyright will put the entire Western corpocracy at a massive disadvantage should at least provide some impetus for things to move in a much more reasonable direction, particularly if the matter is brought to the God-Emperor’s attention.

DISCUSS ON SG