Surreality Check
A Savage Writer's Journal
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 30 | 31 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
02 April 2003
Dancing With Jiggs
If some of what I'm hearing coming out of the Pentagon (both in the media and privately) is true, Kirk Douglas needs to be called back to active duty to teach military ethics to a helluva lot of officers. And that disgusts me.
John Frankenheimer directed a black-and-white film in the early 1960s about a failed military coup. Here in the United States. Seven Days in May is not a model of subtlety (the conspirators, for example, were complete idiots), nor of reality. Three performances, however, stand out: Burt Lancaster as the megalomaniacal General Scott, Fredric March as the President, and Kirk Douglas as a Marine colonel who works directly for Scott. The critical exchange that too many officers today seem not to understand is between Douglas and March. March asks Douglas what he thinks of a controversial disarmament treaty. Douglas's reply is priceless:
I agree with General Scott, [Mr. President]. I think we're being played for suckers. I think it's really your business—yours and the Senate. You did it and they agreed, so I don't see how we in the military can question it. I mean, we can question it, but we can't fight it. We shouldn't, anyway.
Apparently, some officers have decided that they're smarter than the National Command Authority and have a better plan for prosecuting the campaign in Iraq. They might be right. But once their input into the plan has been made, their only acceptable response is "Yes, sir," followed by carrying out the orders actually given. Unless, of course, those orders constitute a threat to the Constitution or a clear violation of the laws of war. It's not just coming from civilians; the officer corps is forgetting its oath.
Sadly, this has a counterpart in the controversy over sexual misconduct at the Air Force Academy. I still believe that the military needs to deal with heterosexual misconduct before it worries about consensual homosexuality, but I've been a voice in the wilderness on that issue since I first entered active duty. What this really betrays, though, is that the DOD didn't actually learn anything from Tailhook. Dammit, officers first, job titles second. I don't give a rat's ass about the need to "let the boys let off some steam"—because one does not let off steam by assaulting or disrespecting a fellow officer or cadet.
Maybe we should just close the military academies. I can't speak for West Point, but I did work with a fair number of Navy and Marine officers, and a lot of Air Force officers. There was no discernable difference in officership, as a group, between officers who entered through ROTC and officers who graduated from the respective Academy. The Academy grads, on average, were slightly better technicians than those from ROTC. However, those from ROTC, on average, were slightly better educated (and at the top end, significantly better educated) and more adaptable to changing conditions than the Academy grads. There isn't a significant enough difference to justify keeping the Academies running, particularly since there is now a large-enough pool of college-educated men and women to supply an adequate officer corps. More than adequate. And perhaps, because better acquainted with real life instead of monasticism, better equipped to treat fellow officers as fellow officers.
04 April 2003
The Horror… the Horror
The current conflict in Iraq—calling it a "war" is a mistake, given that there has been no declaration of war, and that such legal niceties will make a huge difference when it comes time to trying the losers' leaders as war criminals—bears an uncomfortable resemblance to certain aspects of the Vietnam fiasco. The critical terrain is dominated, again, by a river (Mekong or Euphrates, it doesn't really matter). There is a huge mismatch between the conventional forces, but a lurking disaster in asymmetrical warfare.
And we have Colonel Kurtz. Someone who used to be well thought-of (as these things go) in the highest circles of the US military. But he went bad. Instead of sending Captain Willard to terminate him with extreme prejudice, though, we've already called in the airstrikes.
The other frightening similarity is the almost complete cultural ignorance in the US of much of what the news cameras are showing us. In the first days of the conflict, some footage was shown over and over again of an Iraqi civilian beating on the face of a huge poster of Saddam with the sole of his shoe. Nobody remarked on this at all. Let me put it this way: if you really want to seriously insult someone in the Arab world while you're sitting around talking, show him the sole of your shoe. The symbolic trampling of the poster was not just an expression of freedom, as implied by the ignorant voiceovers; it was a declaration of personal disgust and disdain going beyond the Western tradition of burning effigies. Merely ripping down or defacing that poster would not have been so stark a statement—or at least not to other Persian Gulf residents.
Now we just await Colonel Kilgore. Maybe this time the 1st Battalion, 9th Cavalry (or whatever part of the 101st Airborne fulfills the role) will play Jimi Hendrix at full volume from the choppers as they roll in, in hopes of scaring the hell out of the locals (sorry, I couldn't—and wouldn't—come up with a one-syllable epithet to maintain parallel prosody).
Some day this war's gonna end.
08 April 2003
Random Annoyances
Totally at random, other things that annoy but really mean nothing in the greater scheme of things. Well, I suppose that a conspiracy theorist could find some reason to believe that they mean the end of Western civilization, but I can't.
- Roads that mark the boundary between two jurisdictions, such as between the city and the county—thus ensuring that both sides will fail to get needed maintenance.
- Gas station and refinery owners who somehow believe that jacking prices up fast in response to phantom, ephemeral changes in crude-oil futures prices is acceptable, but won't act with the same speed in response to even a well-supported drop in crude-oil futures prices.
- Bills and windowed return envelopes that require turning a standard portrait-sized stamp sideways to keep from covering part of the window.
- For that matter, monthly bills that are not sent with prepaid postage on the envelopes. Look, it would be cheaper in the long run for the power company to jack up the rates by $0.27 per billing and pay for business-return service on its envelopes, and it might encourage people to pay more promptly because they wouldn't have to run out to get stamps.
- ISPs that expect customers to keep paying for equipment and lines that were paid off in 1993—and haven't been updated (and probably seldom maintained) since.
- Book reviews (and reviewers) that do nothing more than rephrase the flap/back cover copy and provide a one-sentence pseudoevaluation.
One annoyance, though, that could very well lead to the end of Western civilization, because it encourages a kind of rigid orthodoxy that is inherently dangerous. The leading exponent of this nonsense is… the MPAA. With its asinine rating system. Relatively minor sexual content—keeping in mind that sex is a necessary human activity, at least for the present—earns an R rating, but a mass murder is PG-13 or even PG. As Janis Ian noted,
I watched the news last night at nine
Saw a head blown off somebody's spine
While the women cried and the children screamed
Doesn't anybody think that that's obscene?
Janis Ian, "Rate My Music"
Anybody who claims that censorship of this nature—and it is censorship, dammit, even if it's not a complete ban—is just "good 'murikan values" and that violence is part of human nature, and is therefore suitable for younger people than is even fleeting depiction of sex, obviously has never considered the political ramifications of the Comstock Act. That is at the least intellectually dishonest—and ignores the Song of Solomon (among other parts of the Bible that don't seem consistent with so-called Victorianism).
16 April 2003
Let Me Tell You How It Will Be…
There's one for you, nineteen for me…
'cause I'm the Taxman, ooh yeah,
the Taa-axe-man
It's bad enough doing one's own taxes. Doing somebody else's, or having clients frantically call with oddball questions (to which the answer is almost always "maybe"), is a bit much. That's what I get, though.
Ooooh, Mr. Wilson
Which leads to a few thoughts on the US tax system. They won't be popular ones, particularly with the upper 1-2%.
- Self-employment tax should be abolished, as should the so-called "employer's share" of Social Security and Medicare tax payments that the self-employment tax supposedly compensates for to keep the self-employed from having an unfair advantage. Instead, I propose a flat 10% surcharge… with no upper limit (self-employment tax and FICA withholding apply only to the first $80,000 or so of wages), and on all income, not just wages. Based on public documents, this would actually prevent the Social Security trust fund from running into problems in a few years like it will based on current demographics. It will also level the playing field more between "employees" and "independent contractors" and other small businesses. Not to mention that the self-employment tax doubles the tax rate for anyone in the 15% tax bracket…
- It's not a "frivolous return," subject to a $500 penalty, if the envelope is addressed to the Infernal Revenue Service, or the check payable to "Infernal Revenue Service." Technically, neither the envelope nor a check is a tax document. It is, however, a "frivolous return" if it's filled out in crayon, even if scrupulously accurate—as one woman from Ohio found out a couple of years ago. The IRS always chooses somebody every tax year to be the "example." Perhaps the IRS's resources could be better spent elsewhere.
Ooooh, Mr. Heath
- Royalties aren't royalties. Unless they're from prior years. Technically, any income for which work was done during the tax year is self-employment income, even if it is denominated a "royalty" on a 1099-MISC or in a publishing contract. Thus, if I proofed my galleys in calendar year 2002, the "royalties" paid to me for that book must be reported as self-employment income—and are thus subject to self-employment tax. However, if I did nothing at all for a book in 2002 other than cash the royalty check, that is a royalty. But it's a royalty that can't be reported on Schedule E of Form 1040 (which concerns only rents and royalties arising from interests in real, not intellectual, property). The interesting question—interesting, that is, if you have no life or personality—is this: What about an advance paid during calendar year 2002, let's say for the third book in a just-beginning series, for which no work was done in calendar year 2002? Since no work was done that year, it can't be self-employment income, can it? Well, yes. It is. It is treated as a retainer. The better solution—although not one that is consistent with the tax code—would be to treat it as a royalty if it's called a royalty in the publishing contract, and to hell with self-employment. Of course, that might limit some authors' ability to deduct home offices, congoing, etc.
- And we haven't even gotten to state tax returns yet.
If your head doesn't hurt yet, you're probably a CPA. And, therefore, probably not reading this. If your head does hurt, perhaps the stereo needs to be played at a lower volume.
19 April 2003
Rebel Without a Clause
At this time, a significant part of the Iraqi citizenry is protesting US and British intervention. There has been little criticism of this; in fact, high officials—including the official spokesman for US forces in the Persian Gulf—have said that this is a good thing. In their opinion, it demonstrates that the Iraqi people feel free to dissent.
So why, then, if someone dissents over here, or even wants to read something about dissent, do the Patriot Act and other misuses of power treat her worse than a conquering army treats citizens of a nation that had been an avowed enemy of the US for well over a decade? Consider, for example, a writer with a background in chemistry who wants to see exactly what The Anarchist's Cookbook recommends as a method for creating TNT. (Hint: It's more likely to kill the person making it than create useable explosives for a bomb.) Under the Patriot Act, I have little doubt that if that library had any visibility in front of the FBI—and what college town library wouldn't, particularly one with a world-renowned program in engineering and a lot of foreign graduate students—that bit of research would probably result in an interview with the Feds.
Therefore, in an effort to help drown out the government's monitoring of legitimate dissent, I offer the following disjointed words and phrases to trigger phantom search engine results:
Jihad
explosives
Molotov cocktail
Kalashnikov
anarchists of the world, unite!
Wahabbi
Q'tub
Q'ran | Koran
suitcase bomb
There. That should increase attention to this page from the Geheimstaatspolizeistrebener aus den Vaterlandsecuritätsburo. And hopefully allow other real dissent to flourish—as dissent, not as actual terrorism, whether by the People for the Ethical Treatment of Vegetables in a raid on local grocery stores to set free the baby carrots so untimely separated from their parents or the Judean People's Front (or was it the People's Front of Judea?) writing "Yankee Goes Home" in the marketplace. Or something worse. Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.
Of course, my former profession considered itself (offically!) as performing the management of violence.
23 April 2003
Slumlords
Let's face it. Speculative fiction is a ghetto, both by outside and inside influences, just like real ghettos. A "ghetto" referred to Jewish enclaves in Eastern European long before it referred to ethnic or racial enclaves in the US. Just as the residents of the ghetto are often not welcome outside it, nonresidents are not welcome inside it.
The publishing industry has more than done its part, particularly when one includes the bookselling segment of the industry. (Anybody who tries to tell you that booksellers are not an integrated part of the publishing industry is either a vanity publisher trying to take your money or an ignorant fool.) The difficulty in both publishing and in the sales subsegment is simple: reliance on similarity. Pick up a book. Grabbing one at random from the shelf…
"If Stephen King set out to rewrite 'The Waste Land' as a novel, the result might resemble [this book]."
What utter crap. And it's above the author's name and the novel's title on the cover, in a clearer type than used for either. (This is by no means a slam at the author, whose work deserved and continues to deserve much better.) Note the two "similarities" invoked by this little spell: to Stephen King's prose and perhaps storytelling, and to T.S. Eliot's bleak imagination. Leaving aside for the moment whether they are accurate descriptions or not—I do not believe so, but that's a different dead horse that I've long ago sent to the knacker—note that the similarities invoked do not actually tell us anything whatsoever about the book. They are instead intended to sell the book in the same way as those stupid beer and liquor commercials that try to convince us that drinking brand X leads to a wonderful, exciting social life filled with beautiful people and no need to go to work the next morning.
It's nothing more than sympathetic magic.
At a slightly greater level of abstraction, the same can be said for all other categories in publishing. Almost without exception, the finest works (and, of more interest to the publishers, the works that continue to sell on the backlist more than five years after issue, but that's a dirty little secret that the industry would rather not admit) challenge the boundaries of those categories. This might become more apparent by looking at examples outside of speculative fiction for the moment. Consider Scott Turow's novels of Kindle County, beginning with Presumed Innocent. They are not just "legal thrillers" by any means (and one can argue, with a great deal of evidence to back it up, that Presumed Innocent essentially created that contemporary publishing category). They are intensely novelistic works that happen to revolve around a murder and the subsequent trial. They don't fit well as mysteries, either, because solving the mystery is almost secondary. Consider, too, Richard Powers's underrated novels, which do border (and in two cases cross directly into) speculative fiction. Conversely, those works that fit "right down the middle" of a publishing category seldom remain active on back lists five years after publication, and are often left in print only for the purpose of taking advantage of a minor sales spike when that author's next book is released. Which is yet another example of similarity and sympathetic magic.
As usual, to be continued
27 April 2003
It Sure Beats the Alternative
So I'm a year older. Again. And feeling it. However much it hurts, though, it sure beats the alternative of not getting older.
Another thing that beats the alternative—although by substantially less, frankly—is the normal result of "slumming" in the ghetto by the literary "overclass." Even the best of these works is ordinarily below the wretched standard set in the publishing industry (see, e.g., David Morse's The Iron Bridge—an unusally competent and nonetheless unsuccessful attempt, or John Updike's wretched and unreadable The Witches of Eastwick; the less said about Diana Gabaldon the better). This is not to say, by any means, that those "outside the ghetto" have nothing to teach those of us on the inside; easy counterexamples include Cervantes, Orwell, and Atwood. However, there is a certain arrogance going both ways across the ghetto wall that undermines the quality of everything.
- Speculative fiction has, for all of its faults, learned a lot of things not to do in good speculative fiction, particularly in alternate history. Morse's book falls into the trap of the "single event theory" of creating alternate historical timestreams. Even easily "described" changes, such as "Japan and Germany won the war, not the US and Britain" (Dick, The Man in the High Castle), come from complex interactions and multiple changes.
- Conversely, the so-called mainstream has learned a lot about narrative method, voice, reliability, and structure that seldom appears in speculative fiction. It's somewhat ironic that speculative fiction has turned away from the fully expanded narrative thread toward cinematic false simultaneity—because contemporary fiction outside this particular ghetto has begun to reject that method.
I suspect that this gets back into "authors and editors don't read enough" again, but that seems like a perfectly adequate cliffhanger. Or perhaps foreshadowing—the mark of excellence in literature. Except if the author is Charles Dickens.
Yet another continuance
30 April 2003
An Intervening Cause
Libertarians are not. In favor of actual liberty, that is. This is particularly apparent in so-called "libertarian-oriented" science fiction, in which the evil governments are overthrown by the honorable businesspeople. (Sadly, it's even more apparent in real life—just look at the Michigan Militia et al.)
The key question—one that libertarian thought blithely ignores—is a simple one: Who polices abuses of power, and how? The entropy of the universe tends toward the maximum, localized areas of low entropy (that is, high "order") will eventually smooth out when compared to the universe's background radiation. Power, whether political, cultural, moral, economic, or whatever other limitation one wishes to put upon it, does the same. Thus, the aphorism that "power abhores a vacuum."
The so-called "libertarian" view is that civil liberties must be absolutely maximized and government absolutely minimized. Don't pay too much attention to those who claim otherwise in their rhetoric. Look instead at what they actually propose. The libertarian movemen—and most obviously so in fictional depictions of it—replaces what we now know as governments with vigilante-style cooperatives that "keep the peace among themselves." So where, then, is the power? It hasn't disappeared just because there is no formalized "government" (cf. Sherman and Kushner, The Fall of the Kings; Le Guin, The Dispossessed). It has been reified instead as "cooperative effort." Of course, what happens to those who choose not to cooperate looks one helluva lot like… feodality. Yes, the Western governmental system that preceded liberal democracy. A system based upon a "might is right" theology. The only distinction that the libertarians can offer is a broader definition of "might" than "swords and cavalry." Which leads to the question asked by Samuel L. Jackson in the otherwise horrid remake/sequel Shaft:
Does that make me less dangerous—or more?
For all its faults—and there are many, many of them—a liberal democracy offers an orderly mechanism for removing those who abuse power without resorting to corresponding abuses of power. A corporate government, or government of cooperating free-range militiapersons, or a government of true believers in the Faith, or the oligarchy of Omelas, cannot respond to an abuse of power without another abuse of power.
In other words, the true "libertarian" position is one that recognizes the human weakness that any source of power eventually will be abused, and provides a nonabusive means of removing the abuser(s). Somehow, I can't see that happening too easily when the initial source of power is based upon one's marksmanship.
<<<Last Month (March) — Next Month (May)>>>
- the fine print first (you'll need to replace "{at}" with "@" on the address line). Please come back soon.
-
Return to
- Return to Surreality Check
Intellectual Property Rights: © 2003 John Savage. All rights reserved.
You may contact me concerning permissions via email.
This copyright notice overrides, negates, and renders void any alleged copyright or license claimed by any person or entity, specifically including but not limited to any claim of right or license by any web hosting service or software provider, except when I have transferred such rights with a signed writing that complies with the requirements for transferring the entire copyright as specified in Title 17 of the United States Code. This includes, but is not limited to, translation or other creation of derivative works, use in advertising or other publicity materials without prior authorization in writing, or any other non-private use that falls outside the fair use exception specified in Title 17 of the United States Code. If you have any question about whether commercial use, publicity or advertising use, or republication in any form satisfies this notice, it probably does not. Violations of intellectual property rights in these pages will be dealt with swiftly using appropriate process of law, probably including a note to your mother telling her that you're a thief.
"The Savage Beast", "Savage Reviews", "Surreality Check", and the dragon-and-book banner are trade and service marks of the website owner. Other marks appearing on these pages belong to third parties, and appear either with permission or as exemplary references.