text:
Related Articles
May 18, 2015
June 22, 2016
February 09, 2016
April 13, 2016
September 20, 2013
December 28, 2011
Jump to navigation
Submitted by [email protected] on
In my recent post on the end of geography I described some of the Promised Land of portfolio management governance, as explained by Rick Hess and Olivia Meeks in their paper for Fordham's recent symposium on education governance. (At the time I was not aware of CRPE's portfolio convention in Seattle—more on their initiative at another time.) The idea is that the brave new world of education governance should be driven by function not geography. The implications are enormous.
How we get to the Promised Land—and pay for the trip, lacking manna from heaven—and what we can do to smooth the course is the subject of this post. And some good answers to those questions come to us via the Koret Task Force on K-12 Education, and its report, Choice and Federalism. I mentioned the report last winter, in a slippery slope back to mediocrity essay, following the House Education and Workforce Committee's states' rights proposals for ESEA reauthorization. I wondered then whether states' rights were "being invoked to cover up the very inequities—the `soft bigotry of low expectations'—that No Child Left Behind was determined to remedy." And I was heartened to know that Koret—which includes some very smart people, including our own Checker Finn, Task Force Chair—shared some of those concerns.
But the important message of the Koret report—at least, the summary of it written by member Grover Whitehurst, in the Spring edition of Education Next—is that we need a "fundamentally new approach" to education governance. While Hess and Meeks discussed the merits of a decentralized system of education service delivery, Koret shows how we might reform existing governance structures, with smart federalism, choice, and competition, to help make that happen.
As Whitehurst points out, we've already tried top-down accountability (e.g., Clinton, Bush, Obama) and devolving power to states and districts (the failure of which, says Whitehurst, "motivated increased federal involvement in the first place"). What Koret proposes is a third way, which, ironically, calls for going back to our roots and invoking "two principles that have served the nation exceedingly well throughout its history: federalism and choice." It is the combination of these two all-American and, if history be the guide, hugely successful governance principles, in the context of twenty-first century demands, that makes this report such a powerful document.
Koret avoids the Manichaeism of the local control versus federal control debate and invokes memories of our uber-practical and well-educated revolutionaries of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the folks who designed a governance system remarkably adept at promoting and protecting individual rights while tightly constraining the federal government. Koret calls it "fiscal federalism" and says it's characterized by two basic beliefs:
The challenge, as Whitehurst notes, is that "lack of geographical mobility for large segments of the population undermines the competitive pressure that low-performing schools and school districts would otherwise expect to face."
We could intervene from above, says Whitehurst, which is what we've tried to do the last fifteen years, with little success. Instead, Koret proposes that "funding must follow the student."
Thus, if you tear down the geographic boundaries, as Hess and Meeks suggest, and allow education service providers the freedom to contract with schools, school districts, states, and other governing bodies, you will, argues Whitehurst, "create a marketplace for schooling that will evolve toward greater responsiveness to what parents want, will be more innovative, and will become more productive." But you've got to resolve the "geographical mobility" problem. Part of the answer is "backpack funding," where the dollars follow the student. But Koret also recomends that that funding be "weighted" so that "needy students [receive more] than traditional distribution schemes."
Of crucial importance in this new governance model, however, is redefining the federal role, which has sucked so much air out of our education governance room. (The Ed Next story has a handy chart, listing all the federal K-12 expenditures in 2010, by program, including ESEA ($48.4 billion), College and Career Ready Students ($14.4 billion), Native Hawaiian Student Education ($33 million), and a couple dozen other federal initiatives.) Koret would severely curtail the federal role, by defining four specific duties for our national government:
These are such clear-headed and practical suggestions that it seems odd we have not embraced them before. But the beauty of the four principles is how they balance the duties of the federal government to ensure a free market and its duties to safeguard our individual rights, including the right to equal access to an education. The Koret folks have managed to pinpoint the greatest opportunity and greatest challenge of our age: "Market-based competition cannot exist in public education unless the consumers of public education can choose where to be schooled."
Naturally, the devil is in the details (and the Koret report has them), but it is so very refreshing to encounter a set of principles that make both practical and historical sense that I'm happy just to see the Promised Land—that shining city in the cloud.
May 18, 2015
June 22, 2016
February 09, 2016
April 13, 2016
September 20, 2013
December 28, 2011


text:
Sammy's Beach Bar at Ballys is back for another season. Sammy Hagar, rock Hall-of-Famer and founder of the Cabo Wabo Cantina in Cabo San Lucas, brought his signature lifestyle to the beaches of Bally's Atlantic City two years ago and is back for a third season.
This summer, Sammy's Beach Bar will once again offer live entertainment, drink specials, and signature dishes on the beachs.
Sammy Hagar's new Beach Bar Rum will also be available to compliment the Mexican fusion favorites such as spicy Jersey Shore fries, sea salt-spiced shrimp, wings and burgers.
This season, specialty cocktails include, Sammy's Maui Libre, made with Beach Bar Rum and Coke ($5) on Saturdays and Skyy Infusions Cherry Limeades ($5) on Industry Sundays, Cabo Wabo Margaritas and Shots ($6) and Hennessey Black & Belvedere Cocktails ($5) on Latin Mondays, Absolut Berri Acai Cocktails ($4) and Malibu Cocktails ($4) on Model DJ Tuesdays.
"Atlantic City is becoming my second home, on May 18th I'm playing here with Chickenfoot at the House of Blues and that same day Bally's opens up Sammy's Beach Bar, so either I need to get a place of my own or Don (Marrandino, Caesars Eastern division president) needs to get a more comfortable couch," said Sammy Hagar. "Seriously, I've partnered with Bally's for three years and it's been electric ever since, now I'm so excited to be back launching my new Beach Bar Rum at MY beach bar, so Atlantic City consider this your warning this summer is going to get loud."
Sammy's Beach Bar will be open on May 18 from 5 p.m. to 3 a.m., May 19 and 20 from noon to 3 a.m.. From Memorial Day Weekend to Labor Day, Sammy's will be open daily from noon to 3 a.m.
On Friday May 25, the Wailers, the reggae band originally formed by Bob Marley in 1963, plays Sammy's Beach Bar.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
She Was Just Bored!
When my daughter turned three, she began to develop some unpleasant traits.
She chewed her fingernails, begged for food constantly, and pestered her little sister until I found myself refereeing, and therefore ruining their relationship. She wanted roller skates like her five-year-old neighbor, nail polish like her older sister, and unlimited cartoon watching on T.V.
She was obviously bored, so I decided to give her some responsibilities to help her earn her roller skates. On a chart I pasted pictures cut from a catalog to represent the jobs she could do, and I "paid" her with fancy stickers to paste by the pictures.
The "musts" included making her bed (no breakfast until the beds were made) and cleaning her room (no bedtime story unless the room was clean); but other jobs I merely helped with. She could scour the bathtub, empty the wastebaskets, put the silverware away, set the table, dust the living room and bedrooms with me, vacuum the rugs in her room.
Some jobs were done well, and some not so well; but usually she was anxious to do them, and she labored for six weeks to earn her skates. Soon she was proudly skating and crawling and bumping up and down the sidewalk. The boredom was gone, she was no longer biting her nails, and she and her little sister were getting along well again.
While working with the Young Women, I had noted that many youth behavior problems seemed to be the result of too little responsibility and nothing difficult to do. It seems this is true of young children also. , Huntington Beach, California
Speedy Goodies
If you're hurrying home from Relief Society and haven't much time to fix dinner, or you need a quick dessert for family home evening, here are three handy recipes:
Two-Bowl Chocolate Cake (Bellevue Washington Stake Relief Society)
Mix well in one bowl:
2 cups sugar
3 cups flour
5 tablespoons cocoa
2 teaspoons soda
1 teaspoon salt
Combine in second bowl:
2/3 cup cooking oil
1 tablespoon vanilla
2 tablespoons vinegar
2 cups cool water
Combine the two mixtures and stir well with a fork or slotted spoon. Bake in ungreased 9-by-13-inch pan for 25–30 minutes at 350 degrees F. Ice when cool.
Mandarin Icing
3 cups powdered sugar
4 tablespoons (1/2 cube) butter or margarine, softened
1 8-oz. can mandarin oranges
Blend three or four tablespoons of juice from can of oranges with the sugar and butter or margarine. Beat well. Ice cake. Use drained orange sections to decorate top. The orange flavor is a delicious complement to the two-bowl chocolate cake.
Mayonnaise Cake (Susan Arrington Hill)
2 cups flour
3 tablespoons cocoa
2/3 cup sugar
1 cup mayonnaise
1 teaspoon soda
1 cup hot water
Sift flour, cocoa, and sugar together, then blend in mayonnaise. Dissolve soda in hot water and add to first mixture. Beat a few seconds until smooth. Bake in 8-by-8 inch pan about 35 minutes at 350 degrees F. Makes a smooth, velvety cake.
What Shall I Cook for Supper?
If you're tired of asking yourself over and over again, every day of every week, "What shall I cook for supper?" the answer is simple: plan a four-week rotating menu. This became my solution when I felt frustrated by kitchen duties. Step by step it goes like this:
First, list your family's favorite main dishes. You probably won't remember all of them at once, so tape the list on a cupboard door and add to it as you think of the dishes. (Going through your recipe file helps.)
Second, note on this same paper how often your family likes to have these dishes repeated during a four-week period.
Third, using a blank menu-plan sheet (draw squares or use a blank calendar), list each of these main dishes in a separate square.
Fourth, cut out all the squares and place them in any order you wish on another menu-plan sheet. Select the easily prepared dishes for Primary or other busy days. Plan for variety so you don't serve hamburger for instance, three days in a row.
If you aren't sure of your arrangement, you might want to tape or pin the squares on and switch them around for awhile.
Be flexible—don't be a slave to the plan. You can skip, trade, change, or go out to eat if you want to. But the plan is there when you want it. It may also help to list side dishes that go well with your main dishes.
Check your menu plan at lunch time; then you still have time to thaw the meat, set the jello for salad, and make sure the ingredients are on hand.
Let the family help in the planning. Children are delighted when they add a dish to the menu. My husband and oldest son have originated (and like to prepare) their own main dishes.
"Secret supper" is one of our favorite menus. Each family member secretly selects one food item for the meal and places it in a paper sack. Then we empty the sacks to see what we will have to eat that night and everyone helps in the preparation. , Montgomery, Alabama
Learning Is Everybody's Business
We ought to be real students—students like no one else. Rather than shifting into neutral and coasting through religion classes—whether at universities, in institutes or seminaries, priesthood quorums, family home evening, or Sunday School—we should move into high gear and study as in no other area. The subject matter merits of us the best intellectual and spiritual effort we can muster; for if we, in this lay Church, don't become proficient in learning the gospel of Jesus Christ, who on earth will? If the elders of Israel do not become profound theologians, who on earth will? If you mothers and mothers-to-be don't learn the gospel sufficiently to teach your children, who on earth will? And, you missionaries, if you don't learn the message the Lord would have you teach, who on earth will? Many painfully discover the obvious—you can't teach well that which you do not know!
Someone has said that the Church is never more than a generation away from extinction, and so it is if truths are not taught effectively. Each generation has the responsibility of teaching these truths effectively to each succeeding generation.
I believe that one of the major reasons many in the world have been so weakened in their moral fiber is because they have not had an effective religious educational program based on true principles. In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we have that; and, furthermore, we are committed. Our leaders are committed. We make no apology to anyone because we plan, organize, and invest resources of time and money. We drive countless miles to haul children to and from Primaries, early-morning seminaries, Church-sponsored Scouting activities, Sunday Schools, sacrament meetings, and quorum activities. We print manuals by the hundreds of thousands for parents and teachers to use in teaching. We establish seminaries, institutes of religion, schools, colleges, and even universities.
Why? So that these truths can be taught and learned. So that circumstances can be created in which the Spirit can testify to all our spirits of the eternal truths of the gospel. This "Spirit" is really the basic distinctive feature of true "religious education." Without it we cannot succeed, and when teachers and students have it, we cannot fail., Associate Commissioner for Religious Education (Brigham Young University devotional address.)
Find It Fast
"Where is the comb?" "Do we have any tape?" "Motherrr—I need an envelope."
In our large family, it seemed someone was always calling me at the crisis stage for something. So now we have a "contentment center," so-called because it keeps everyone happy and contented.
Across a piece of fabric, about 24-by-36 inches, I stitched rows of pockets, each one pre-measured to hold the item it was labeled for: felt-tip pens, masking tape, pens, pencils, Band-Aids, safety pins, glue, scissors, paper and envelopes, and so on.
At first I labeled the pockets with strips of masking tape until I was sure of the positions. Then I printed the labels on the pockets with a felt-tip pen. A dowel stick and a cord attached to the top of the unit made it easy to hang in utility room or family room. Our family is better organized now, and more peace of mind prevails. , Lehi, Utah
Tiny Towels
I make baby washcloths or wipes by cutting up old towels or left-over scraps of terry cloth into five-inch squares and zig-zagging around the edges to prevent fraying. Two or three dozen of these, stacked near the baby's changing table with a squeeze bottle of soapy water, save many trips to the bathroom. , Richmond, Vermont


text: Jerry Pieper, 78, of Sale Creek transferred to Heaven 1 Tuesday, Oct. 23, 2013. A United States Army veteran, he retired from the St. Francis, WI Police Department after 25 years of service. Jerry was an active member of Blue Knights International Law Enforcement Motorcycle Club for over 37 years, a member of H.O.G., and the American Legion. He was preceded in death by his parents, Ernest and Dorothy McIntosh Pieper, and his daughter in law, Connie Sue Pieper.He leaves behind to celebrate his life, his wife, Evelyn Pieper, Sale Creek; sons, Mark (Laura) Pieper, Green Bay, WI, Victor Pieper, Amberg, WI, and Larry (Pam) Pieper, Milwaukee, WI; daughter, Lynn Dee (Lance) Wagner, Sevierville, TN; ten grandchildren, eight great grandchildren, as well as many dear friends, relatives, and his Blue Knights family whose lives he touched. "Ride with pride Jerry."Memorial services will be at 3 p.m. Sunday Oct. 27, in the funeral home chapel.The family will receive friends from 1-3 p.m. Sunday at Legacy Funeral Home and Cremation Center.In lieu of flowers the family requests that memorials be made to C.O.P.S (Concerns of Police Survivors), P.O. Box 3199, Camdenton, MO 65020 or to your favorite charity.Arrangements are by Legacy Funeral Home and Cremation Center, Soddy-DaisyShare your memories, stories and photos at www.legacyfuneralhome.com.


text:
AN ON-CAMPUS VEGAN/VEGETARIAN restaurant where people come together to eat healthy meals, learn about the effects of their food choices and be a part of a community that cares about what they eat: This was his vision. What he hadn't visualized was his name on the side of the building.
That's why, when Marty Perlmutter first heard that Norman and Gerry Sue Arnold and Anita Zucker had not only raised $1 million for the College's new vegan/vegetarian dining facility, but also named it in his honor, he didn't know what to say.
"I was humbled, speechless, tearful, altogether moved that they thought of me – partly because it was a total surprise, partly because people I really care about care enough about me to come together and honor me," says Perlmutter, philosophy professor and the director of the Yaschik/Arnold Jewish Studies Program. "I have worked hard on this project for a lot of reasons. I never expected to be rewarded for it. Academics don't do what they do to have dining halls named after them."
But, if they're going to, the dining halls had better be something they can get behind. And Perlmutter is behind the new facility 100 percent.
"I'm most excited about using eating as an opportunity to show there are lifestyle options that are very important not just to your health, but to the environment, the economy and religious tradition, too," says Perlmutter, noting that the new facility will serve vegan, vegetarian and some pescatarian dishes – all of which will be kosher. "Whether it's about the Jewish culture or our food industry – there's so much that goes into what we eat, and this will bring that to light a little bit. It will show that eating is part of a larger process."
More than just a dining hall, the new facility is meant to be its own classroom, of sorts: educating students, faculty and members of the greater Charleston community about ethical eating through workshops, lectures and, most important, experiential learning.
"The experience of eating vegan food is itself a learning experience. I think this is experiential learning at its best – showing hands-on how what you eat affects the world around us," says Perlmutter, noting that – unlike other campus dining locations – the facility will not offer an all-you-can-eat option. "This will be a place where you are thinking about what you are eating. Because it's not just about the food, but the lifestyle it represents."
Vegetarian and vegan lifestyles are becoming more and more popular in the U.S.: Since 2009, the number of vegans has doubled and the number of vegetarian youth has increased by 70 percent.
"A lot of kids have made the choice to go vegetarian or vegan or pescatarian in the past few years, and this just caters to them," says Perlmutter. "I think this will be useful in recruiting. They'll think, That's groovy. I'm a vegan and this place can make that easier for me. Or, even if they aren't, they'll think, It's cool that this place is tuned into this trend.
"Either way," he continues, "it really is a feather in the College's cap."
With construction beginning this fall and an opening planned for the winter of 2014, the 5,000-square-foot restaurant will occupy the first floor of the expansion of the Sylvia Vlosky Yaschik Jewish Studies Center, will have some outdoor seating, remain open between meals and be open to the public.
"We want people to come in from off the street for a cup of coffee. We want the community involved," says Perlmutter, adding that local restaurant owners and members of the College's Vegan Society helped with the planning of the facility. "What I'm hoping is that it becomes a center for people who are concerned about what they eat – a congregating zone for those people to come and feel that they're on a comfort level with like-minded people."
"The facility will bring people with the common goal of healthy eating together, further integrating people from all faiths and backgrounds and expanding the learning opportunities that we offer our students and the community," says Jenny Fowler, the senior development officer who helped secure the gift. The pledge, Fowler explains, supports the Jewish Studies Program's $10 million A Time to Build campaign, which – since launching in the fall of 2011 – has raised more than $7 million. "The dining facility serves as the edifice of the campaign, a tangible illustration of the campaign's success."
It also illustrates the success of the program itself.
"The Jewish Studies Program is certainly one of the best in the country, and that is the result of the leadership of Marty Perlmutter. It was so natural for us to support this project and that the facility honor Marty's unyielding dedication to the program and to fostering community," says Norman Arnold, who – along with his wife – requested the building be named for Perlmutter, thus inspiring Zucker, Alan Kahn and Art and Annie Sandler to contribute to the project.
"This project happened because of role-model philanthropists," says George Watt, executive vice president of institutional advancement. "They possessed great vision; they believed in the cause; and, through their own giving, they inspired others. It was an honor to work with them and Marty Perlmutter in making their vision a reality."
And, while a sign with his name on it may have never been part of his original vision, in reality, Perlmutter is sincerely honored by the tribute – and thrilled to be bringing ethical eating to the College of Charleston.


text:
Justin Bieber Vector
Vector portrait of golden dream boy and teen idol Justin Bieber, the Canadian R&B singer and pop music sensation. Free Justin Bieber graphics on gold circles background. Download Bieber graphics for free in Illustrator format and connect with millions of Bieber fans and vector art lovers around the world.


text:
Advertisingy u no do it?
Advertising (learn more)Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.
Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.
Best ways to increase website visitors
Discussion in 'General Marketing' started by bluegill_catcher, Jul 7, 2005.
Page 1 of 2
Page 1 of 2


text:
|Thread Tools
I just changed my 7 week old's diaper and noticed that his foreskin was bigger toward the base of his penis.
Thanks to MDC I know this is ballooning and normal....but isn't he a bit young? I thought this happened during separation.
A very very small percentage of boys (and I am talking very few) are born retractable. And while its a small number it does mean its not impossible for a very young boy to be retractable. The whole process could take a while anyhow. He may do this for months and months.
Mama to DD(6) DS(4) DD(2.5)LO(due July 2012): and loving wife to my great DH
I praise and thank God for my family
My DS started ballooning fairly young. Not as a newborn, but well before a year. He's not retractable yet at age 6. Two things need to happen to become retractable. One is that the foreskin needs to detach from the rest of the penis. And the opening of the foreskin needs to become loose enough/stretchy enough to open up so it can slide back over the glans. These things can happen in either order, within days of each other or years apart. Some boys are able to pull the foreskin back partway, only to find that they still have pieces of the foreskin attached. Some boys balloon fully (indicating the skin is entirely separated) before they can pull it back over the glans.
I don't think when a boy starts to balloon has anything to do with when he'll become retractable. Ballooning is quite common in early childhood, yet the average age of retraction is about 10 years. So it seems to me that ballooning as an indication that the child will be retractable soon is a misconception.
My 7 month-old has had some ballooning when he pees for quite some time. He does not appear to be retractable at all (although I have not tried it, obviously). My older sons are 8 and 6 years-old and neither is fully retractable, so I did not take the ballooning to mean that the baby will be retractable soon just based on his older brothers, but I guess it is possible.
DS was an early ballooner, so it seems reasonably common.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
yslexic typing with help of preschooler, beware of typos
|Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
|Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off
Online Users: 8,711
|17 members and 8,694 guests
|alenamiy , Alexis17 , BlankaGreene , Bow , girlspn , katelove , Lydia08 , mumIrene , scaramouche131 , sciencemum , shantimama , thefragile7393 , Tiradocata , Twoscribe , urberki06 , zebra15
|Most users ever online was 449,755, 06-25-2014 at 12:21 PM.


text:
Pretoria - Guests cheered and clapped loudly as Zimbabwean president Robert Mugabe and his wife Grace walked into the Nelson Mandela amphitheatre.
A smiling Mugabe waved at guests as justice minister Jeff Radebe said: "Phambili Chimurenga, phambil."
Former Zambian president Dr Kenneth Kaunda also received loud applause as he entered the venue for President Jacob Zuma's inauguration.
The two leaders have had problems with their health recently. Kaunda, 89, was hospitalised in February reportedly for fatigue. Kaunda ruled the country for 27 years.
This week video footage of Mugabe,90, in hospitalised arriving at a private hospital in Singapore with his wife, Grace.
Mugabe's health is a concern for Zimbabwean who fear instability if the elderly statesman dies in office without resolving succession issues within the ruling Zanu-PF party.
Mugabe has been president since 1980 when Zimbabwean got independence from Britain.
Former home affairs minister and chairperson of the African Union Dr Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma also received thunderous applause when she entered.
Nigerian president Goodluck Jonathan who has been under fire following the kidnapping of over 200 schoolgirls by rebel group Boko Haram is also in attendance. As he walked in wearing his signature hat, Radebe said: "We want our girls back."
At least 38 heads of states and 118 ambassadors, mostly based in Pretoria, are expected at the event which is scheduled to start shortly.
Local politicians in attendance include disgraced former communications minister Dina Pule and DA leader Helen Zille. But politicians are not the only ones in attendance. Soccer players like Simphiwe Tshabalala, actress Minnie Dlamini and businesswoman Basetsana Khumalo.
Zuma will be inaugurated at 11am by Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng and then move to the Sefako M Makgatho presidential guesthouse to have lunch with the VIPs.
While waiting for the event to start, guests were entertained by the SA Military Band. In the afternoon a cultural programme will be held on the southern lawns were members of the public are sitting. Some acts that are billed to perform include Claire John of Mango Groove, The Soil, Oskido and Friends and Chomee. - Pretoria News Weekend


text:
David Brin: Our Favorite Cliché — A World Filled With Idiots…, or,
Why Films and Novels Routinely Depict Society and its Citizens as Fools
posted Sunday 20 January 2013 @ 12:15 pm PDT
It can be hard to notice things you take for granted — assumptions that are never questioned, because everyone shares them. One of these nearly ubiquitous themes is a tendency for most authors and/or film-makers to disdain the intelligence and wisdom of society as a whole, portraying a majority of their fellow citizens as sheep or fools.
Should this be surprising? The Euro-American fable has always featured an individualistic style. When the public pays for a fantasy experience, riding the shoulder of some bold hero or heroine, each customer wants to identify with a protagonist who is special, unique, or at least interesting in some way that departs from run-of-the-mill, batch-processed humanity. Even when the character seems unremarkable, he or she is marked as singular and fascinating by virtue of being the one whose thoughts and experiences we share.
That's the magic of "point of view."
While individuals get our empathy and sympathy, institutions seldom do. The "we're in this together" spirit of films from the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s later gave way to a reflex shared by left and right, that villainy is associated with organization. Even when they aren't portrayed as evil, bureaucrats are stupid and public officials short-sighted. Only the clever bravado of a solitary hero (or at most a small team) will make a difference in resolving the grand crisis at hand.
This rule of contemporary storytelling is so nearly universal that it has escaped much comment – because you never notice propaganda that you already agree with. In other words, the reflex is self-reinforcing. A left-leaning director may portray villainous oligarchs or corporations while another film-maker rails against government cabals. But while screaming at each other over which direction Big Brother may be coming from, they never seem to notice their common heritage and instinct — Suspicion of Authority (SOA) — much in the way fish seldom comment on the existence of water.
Indeed, one of the great ironies is that we all suckled SOA from every film and comic book and novel that we loved… and yet, we tend to assume that we invented it. That only we and a few others share this deep-seated worry about authority. That our neighbors got their opinions from reflexive, sheeplike obedience to propaganda. But we attained ours through logical appraisal of the evidence.
No, you did not invent Suspicion of Authority. You were raised by it.
In fact, few other cultures subscribed to this myth-making approach. The old USSR pushed consolidationist themes; officially sanctioned Soviet science fiction depicted organizations as the central problem-solving entities, with individuals playing support roles. Even where past societies relished more individualistic story protagonists, they nearly always operated as part of a greater social context. In The Hero's Journey, Joseph Campbell described a traditional network of helpers, sages, clan elders and mystic guides to whom the typical champion would cyclically appeal for wisdom, assistance or declarations of definitive truth. While the hero might strive against powerful forces, he or she hardly ever questioned the authority of Olympian deities or Fates, or the overall context of rules binding them all.
Today's dominant storytelling technique, in contrast, nearly always portrays one or two individuals in dire scenarios, without useful support from the societies that made them. There is no help or authority that can be effectively appealed to, because those leaders are at best distracted or foolish. More often than not society itself is the chief malignity that must be combated.
Of course these storyline scenarios mesh well with the intimate, thought-following style of Point of View storytelling. Modern fictional heroes — often talented to a degree that seems larger than life — are shown dealing with some problem or conspiracy that no one else noticed, or confronting the dire consequences of some massive cultural error, or uncovering malfeasance on the part of society's corrupt leaders. When in doubt, it seems, a writer seems best served by assuming the worst.
In its crudest form, this phenomenon has been called the Idiot Plot.
Lately, some intelligent writers like James Fallows have pilloried the news media, blaming them for declining public trust in our institutions. It certainly is true that we've seen a lamentable decline in journalistic standards. And yes, many modern reporters breathlessly exaggerate tales of official depravity. But not all news-folk are sell-outs, all the time. When they target mistakes by some corner of the bureaucracy, or a descend like flies toward the stench of corruption, one might argue that they are only doing their job as "social T cells" – part of our immune system against error. Moreover, during emergencies or disasters they do show public servants skillfully performing difficult tasks, helping re-knit the web of services that keeps us all alive.
(In fact, those emergency workers offer up a clue to what's going on. We'll get back to that, in a minute.)
What's significant here is that real life criticism of our institutions is the main thing that makes them better. Ironically, all the noise that makes us feel demoralized and mistrustful of them may be the surest sign of their overall health. No, the greatest blame for our declining morale should not be cast upon journalism.
It is we in fiction who show no respite or mercy, relentlessly depicting civilization as irredeemably stupid or morally bankrupt. If movies and novels were our basis for judging – say you were an alien relying only on the testimony of our adventure flicks beamed into space – then you would conclude that no human institution can be trusted. Cops won't answer when you call. Or they'll arrive late. Or if they come in time, they'll prove staggeringly inept. Or else, if they swoop in swiftly and seem competent, they will turn out to be in cahoots with the bad guy.
Now imagine that your typical film director ever found herself in real trouble, or the novelist fell afoul of deadly peril. What would they do? They would dial 9-1-1! They'd call for help and expect – demand – swift-competent intervention by skilled professionals who are tax-paid, to deal with urgent matters skillfully and well. In other words there is a stark disconnect between the world that film-makers live in, and the worlds that they portray. An absolute opposite of expectation.
And yet, directors like Cameron, Nolan, Spielberg and their peers clearly don't think they are lying, or doing harm, or insulting the public or civilization or the dedicated professionals they depend upon. I doubt the thought even crosses their minds.
Which is why this whole thing gets completely fascinating.
Now don't get me wrong. I am a big fan of cautionary tales! Nineteen Eighty-Four, Brave New World, On the Beach, Silent Spring, Fahrenheit 451, Soylent Green, Parable of the Sower… these all served up chilling warnings that helped to stave off the very scenarios they portrayed, by girding millions of viewers or readers to think hard about the depicted failure mode, and to devote at least some effort, throughout their lives, to helping ensure that it never comes to pass.
In fact the self-preventing prophecy is arguably the most important type of literature, since it gives us a stick to wield, poking into the ground before us as we charge into a murky future, exploring with our minds what quicksand dangers may lurk just ahead. This kind of thought experiment – that Einstein called gedankenexperiment – is the fruit of our prefrontal lobes, humanity's most unique and recent organ, the font of our greatest gifts: curiosity, empathy, anticipation and resilience. Indeed, forward-peering storytelling is one of the major ways that we turn fear into something profoundly practical. Avoidance of failure. The early detection and revelation of Big Mistakes, before we even get a chance to make them. While hardly in the same league as Orwell, Huxley, Bradbury, Carson, and Butler, I'm proud to be part of that tradition – an endeavor best performed by science fiction.
But this doesn't explain the dreary ubiquity of contempt that seems to fill the vast majority of contemporary novels and films, depicting the writer's fellow citizens as barely smarter than tree frogs, in a civilization unworthy of the name.
Ironically, most writers don't believe society is really that awful. They aren't trying to be accurate! No, they are creating a commercial product, one that has certain fundamental and ineludible requirements. The most basic of which is this: thou shalt keep thy hero or heroine in pulse-pounding jeopardy for 400 pages… or ninety minutes of film. That is the First Commandment. If you succeed in keeping the audience tense and riveted, then all else is secondary.
Ah, but think again about those skilled professionals. The cops and firefighters and FBI guys who are paid to keep us safe. If they show up on time, competent and effective, they will tell your protagonist: "Hey, that was real cool what you did in scene one, foiling that first villainous plot-thing. Only now step aside. We'll take over from here."
Exactly what you want to hear, in real life.
But an utter buzz-kill for drama!
Hence the Iron Rule. Society never works. Along with its corollary. Everyone is stupid. By making these twin assumptions, you can prevent your hero from getting any of the help that would dry-up all the drama. You can blithely and easily keep your protagonist in danger until that final satisfying explosion sets the credits rolling.
Want the simplest example? We've all seen it in Grade B movies. A dozen spoiled, giggling teenagers enter a haunted house. The lights go out. Someone screams. Then we hear the famous line.
"Hey, gang. Let's split up!"
Why? Why do kids in these films deliberately choose to do the stupidest thing imaginable?
Because if they don't split up — if they behave like intelligent people who pool their resources and march out of there with linked arms — the author might actually have to exercise some imagination in order to keep up that precious jeopardy for 90 minutes. But if you start with an assumption of stupidity, the script almost writes itself, hurtling from one gruesome decapitation to the next.
Or take your typical John Grisham book. At a predictable point the hero or heroine is cowering in a motel room, hiding from two dozen bad guys, armed with Uzis, who are watching for her at the train depot, bus station, and airport. They're using magically-instant credit card tracing to zero in on this very hotel! She's trapped!
Somehow it never occurs to our stalwart young protagonist simply to walk out of town. Lace up your sneakers and just hike a few miles, by sidewalk along unsurveiled residential streets, to some nearby suburb where the cops have a reputation for honesty. Or the town beyond that.
Why doesn't it occur to her? Because the novel would be over on page 80, and we can't have that now, can we?
Have you ever read a Michael Crichton novel, or seen one of his movies, in which the hubristic scientist actually paused and declared: "Hey, science shouldn't be done in shadows. If I keep this new thing secret I'll probably do something gruesomely stupid. But if I discuss this innovation with hundreds of peers, some of them will catch my mistakes and things won't get out of hand. Nobody will die."
It's the reasonable thing that any sensible tech wizard would say. But never in a movie. Or just picture someone uttering this line of dialogue:
"Hey, um, Jurassic Park dude. Here's an idea. Why don't you just make herbivores first! A billion people will pay to come. (And you'll only have to pay John Williams for the transcendent-joyful theme music, not the scary stuff.) Then, in ten years, after the security systems are all tested out… make one T Rex! Everyone will pay to come back."
Do you see how competence and openness are the buzz kills of drama?
Oh, but does that always have to be true?
As it turns out, it is possible to name a movie or two, in which the captain or supervisor or organization aren't a blithering idiots. The Fugitive, The Silence of the Lambs, and Apollo 13 all show institutions and public officials functioning well. Incidentally, they were all big hits. One of the core differences between Star Wars and Star Trek lies in how those two franchises treat the question of civilization. In the cosmos of George Lucas, not a single institution is shown functioning or doing its job. Once. At all. Ever. In contrast, Trek always loved to chew on questions like when and how the social compact might work, or fail, or need adjustment, or call for flexibility, or be handled differently by alien minds. Civilization – along with its laws and codes and contradictions – is often a major character in each show. A participant, subject to scrutiny, skepticism, but also sometimes praise. But of course, Star Trek always was an exception to every rule.
Literary science fiction and fantasy also wallow in the Idiot Plot, though with a few noteworthy exceptions. Certainly the recent tsunami of dystopia and apocalypse includes a few truly worthy "dire warnings"… while the rest are just rehashes of the same old, dark fears. Excuses to paint stark villains who can be loathed without bothersome politics. Indeed, Sauron's red, glowing eyes pretty much rule out any danger of plot-slowing stuff like negotiation.
Variations on this theme? Not only is every sci fi innovation kept secret, so that its flaws won't be uncovered and dealt with ahead of time, but the public seldom is invited to share in the New Thing. Or, if they do partake, they are portrayed using it as stupidly as possible, as in the flick Surrogates, where the brilliant invention of remote robotic surrogacy is only used to look good. Talk about a jaundiced view of your fellow citizens.
Did I allude to exceptions? In literature, you could look to the novels of Iain Banks, which depict our descendants having rollicking, dangerous adventures despite living in a near-utopia thanks to the hard work and genius of their ancestors. (You're welcome, kids.) Vernor Vinge, in Rainbows End, portrays near-future citizenship becoming tech-empowered art in a society that's getting better all the time… yet, drama is not killed.
One of my favorite recent exceptions is the series of four Spiderman flicks. None of them are highbrow or classy. But despite their clichéd fluffiness, there appears to be a little-noticed tradition. In all of the first three films, Spiderman repeatedly saves New Yorkers from harm. But there is always a moment of brief role-reversal… when normal people, regular New Yorkers, step up and save Spiderman. Indeed, when I watched the recent fourth one – the reboot – I had to start by quashing sadness over Hollywood's craven inability to ever try anything new. Still, there came a moment, near the end, when – once again and with style — citizens stood up again for their hero. And I felt a thrill.
I felt proud.
How do such unpoisonous moments manage to sneak in, despite the driving needs of jeopardy pacing? In fact, all of the exceptions listed above stand out as excellent dramas because the writer decided to work for a living, using imagination to depict credible characters, people in peril, with problems to solve. Mistakes are made and these help drive the plot! Nevertheless, the writer or director did not feel compelled to slander all of civilization, just to get a little more jeopardy.
Shall we test my theory? If I'm right, and the dramatic needs of an action plot drive everything, then there should be a simple relationship between the magnitude of the danger and how competent civilization is allowed to be.
If the hero's nemesis is a regular, run of the mill criminal, you have to find some way to isolate the protagonist and prevent her from getting help from professionals. Local cops are corrupt. Or you're trapped on in a wilderness without phones. Or bringing in the authorities would deny you vengeance. Or the classic: you've been framed or convicted by mistake and the cops become part of the problem. Part of the jeopardy. These methods are standard, though the details can range from hoary clichés to rare plot twists that are cleverly innovative, even surprising and memorable.
Things get a bit easier as your bad guy grows more powerful, especially if you grant the SOB an unlimited supply of henchmen who are willing to die in service of Blofeld's evil plot to kill everybody on Earth. (Including, presumably, all of the henchmen's relatives; where does casting find these guys?)
All of this feeds into a sliding scale of villain power. Culminating with the aliens of Independence Day. Notice, in that case, that you no longer need incompetence or corruption of our institutions. Jeopardy takes care of itself. The invaders are so badass that even the United States government and military are allowed to simultaneously be both capable and good! In order to provide spear-carrier support for the two or three point-of-view heroes.
This sliding scale is adjustable. If the director actually wants to do something original – and the writer's brain is not already fried on cocaine – then there are always possibilities. A chance, here or there, to do what they manage to pull off in the Spiderman films.
A chance to say: "Mistakes were made and bad deeds done. These propel our story and our warning. On the other hand we aren't enslaved utterly to the Idiot Plot. Beyond the basic needs of our tale, we feel no need to slander a civilization that's been good to us, bringing to light all the wonders of science, providing us with health and safety and toys, while paying us to tell stories for a living!
"It's fine to criticize government and all the other centers of power, probing for their inevitable, arrogant error-modes. But we won't blanket-betray the nation that protected us, or the city whose cops we'd call, if we ever got into real trouble. We won't undermine the confidence of our fellow citizens by hammering away at their belief in themselves, or their democratic institutions.
"Our movie-or-book is driven by some mistakes and warnings, for sure. And we promise relentless adventure! Thrills, spills and narrow escapes, galore.
"But we will also compensate, palliate, and try not to spread a poison.
"In the background, just beyond our hero's manic view, you'll glimpse a civilization that's not hopeless, and citizenship succeeding just a little, now and then.
"If only because… well… we've got to live here, too."
Category: Uncategorized.
Pingback from News about News about Life and Society issue #1 | Blog4.RapiChat.com
Time January 20, 2013 at 2:24 pm
[…] weren't only talking about what is wrong with South Africa, but they wer more… David Brin: Our Favorite Cliché — A World Filled With Idiots…, or, Why Films … – Lo… – locusmag.com 01/20/2013 David Brin: Our Favorite Cliché — A World Filled With Idiots…, […]
Pingback from Buzz Hollywood: Celebrity News and Gossip: David Brin: Our Favorite Cliché — A World Filled With Idiots…, or, Why Films … – Locus Online
Time January 20, 2013 at 3:00 pm
[…] David Brin: Our Favorite Cliché — A World Filled With Idiots…, or, Why Films …Locus OnlineBut if you start with an assumption of stupidity, the script almost writes itself, hurtling from one gruesome decapitation to the next. Or take your typical John Grisham book. At a predictable point the hero or heroine is cowering in a motel room … […]
Comment from Liz McLellan
Time January 20, 2013 at 4:02 pm
" One of the core differences between Star Wars and Star Trek lies in how those two franchises treat the question of civilization. In the cosmos of George Lucas, not a single institution is shown functioning or doing its job. Once. At all. Ever. In contrast, Trek always loved to chew on questions like when and how the social compact might work, or fail, or need adjustment, or call for flexibility, or be handled differently by alien minds. "
Interesting thought… I have a very dogged sense of my civic life and duties…and thinking about it there is a really good chance that I can lay that squarely at the feet of Roddenberry and watching Star Trek obsessively as a young person…
Comment from Thomas Pluck
Time January 20, 2013 at 5:01 pm
Excellent read, David. There are plenty of ways to deny characters help from authority. Marginalize them somehow. Make them distrust authority- even if it behaves competently in the story-world. Put the villain in society's blind spots, the way a psychopath operates.
Comment from Mike Lorrey
Time January 20, 2013 at 7:28 pm
a whole lotta tl;dr
David, you've become a rather disgusting shill for Big Brother and all his schemes to enslave the human race. You attack journalists for being to energetic for attacking government officials? Gimme a break, if there is any problem in this country, it is that the media have become cheerleading shills for the authoritarian that are abrogating our constitution. You among them.
Comment from David Brin
Time January 20, 2013 at 8:51 pm
Exactly Thomas. I have no objection to writers and directors finding clever ways to isolate their characters from getting help, so that they must solve the crises themselves. And if that gimmick also happens to criticize some failure mode in the police or government or the way we run our cities… fine! Good art can criticize while giving us fun adventure. Shine light into blind spots! It is what my nonfiction book The Transparent Society is about.
What I deem lazy and low is the reflex of throwing your protagonist into peril by dint of civilization being completely absent of good and smart and skilled people. Or institutions that creak and groan but try (some of them) sincerely to function. That is not helpful criticism, it is sloth. Moreover, when it is endlessly repeated, it becomes a poison.
We, in science fiction especially, can do better. — DB
Comment from Ed Knight
Time January 20, 2013 at 10:00 pm
There's an early 90's Nicholas Cage noir film called Red Rock West that's stuck with me through the years because the sheriff's deputy was competent, but always one step behind. The fast pace of the action was what kept him from catching up. I've thought that was a good way to maintain tension and competence simultaneously. Help will arrive as soon as the protagonists slow down… If they only could…
Comment from Darryl Parker
Time January 21, 2013 at 3:08 am
Very thought-provoking and revealing. I'm sure the "Idiot Plot" will be with me a long time. Thank you.
I put forth John Shirley's recent book "Everything Is Broken" (2012) as an example of an exploration of extreme individualism in a strong society that allows for it. The institutions are missing heroes in this tale and the good citizens banded together (with their weaknesses) must overcome the anarchist individuals. It appeals to the Left because of the Libertarian/Tea Party slant of the antagonists, but nonetheless the story is not reliant on the "Idiot Plot". My only challenge to Shirley is similar to yours to Grisham – just get up and walk out. He addresses that but it is contrived in such a way to come off as a weak attempt. I found the read a refreshing contrast to exactly the plots you describe.
Comment from stevem johnson
Time January 21, 2013 at 4:25 am
In the context of the real world, this boils down to outrage that literature and drama don't routinely seem to routinely validate the necessity and sufficiency of our world of the free market, sovereign national states, religious pluralism… well, pretty much everything that defines the US as perceived by an upper middle class conventional thinker.
I think it would be much more appropriate to criticize the emphasis on physical jeopardy plots. The universally dim view of human nature derives from unquestioning acceptance of dogmas of original sin by the religiously inclined, and by models of economic man from the secular inhumanists. Physical jeopardy plot assume either or mingle them confusedly. In either view, social institutions are mechanical expressions of human nature or market forces and are not to be questioned. When they are not allowed as objects of study, what other role is there in fiction but an obstacle to a physical jeopardy plot? The point is that humanity is not to be allowed to conceive of social institutions, even in fiction, as something amenable to change, much less held to account.
The arbitrary ways in which social institutions are disappeared to permit a physical jeopardy plot is not an implicit critique. It is a simple plot necessity. But, as said, the emphasis on the individual presumes the religious emphasis on the eternal human soul or the model of society as the outcome of free individual choices. The numerous victories of the protagonists expresses the vicarious victory of the readers or audiences. An endless parade of daydreams about winning the human race diverts us from remembering that the human race isn't a competition.
Perhaps a critique of cyncism about humanity is in order. But Prof. Brin's anger and contempt for people who do not forthrightly praise our institutions makes him the last person to make it.
Comment from Mark P
Time January 21, 2013 at 12:08 pm
I hear you, David, very clearly, and I don't disagree with your basic outline of the Idiot Plot. But what about shows/books that are there as a critique of society and social institutions that play out a nuanced story of people trying to do right(-ish) in a corrupt or dysfunctional system? I'm thinking the Wire and Treme.
Comment from Space27
Time January 21, 2013 at 12:49 pm
To deny characters help from authority. In other words, to keep the protagonists from being helped by authority, society, the public, and any bystanders and cast extras. This is only one method to hold the reader's interest, and this method is overused.
It is also not needed much of the time. I recall stories and films in which the protagonists do not resort to seeking help from authority or society. Such protagonists simply have no need for that. Others may need help but they are not aware of that fact, or they believe they don't need help. Still others shun help not because of distrust in anyone, but because of their own pride. Some protagonists simply want to win their game all by themselves, because they are individualists or because self-sufficiency is the custom of their setting. Often these are adventure stories, often they're male protagonists, and often they win, survive or prevail. Such stories have been popular with readers in all social classes and in many countries. Possibly, many readers have seen a similarity between the fictional societies and their own society in real life: normal, functional, not foolish or weird, but ordinary.
However, help denial is still necessary some of the time. Thriller-type stories involving extra-ordinary situations tend to show their protagonists as not self-sufficient enough to win by themselves, often because the antagonists or circumstances have so much going for them. But even help denial does not have to be done by using adversity from authority or society, nor by using foolishness or weakness of citizens. A fictional authority can be willing and ready to give its help to a protagonist, but this does not have to mean it is always able to. A fictional society can see things as they are and act on it with altruism, but this does not have to take into account resources and obstacles of its own.
Pingback from A World Filled With Idiots – Our Favourite Cliché (via @locusmag) | Literarium – The Blog
Time January 21, 2013 at 8:31 pm
[…] Read on to find out the results of that thought experiment here: http://www.locusmag.com/Perspectives/2013/01/david-brin-our-favorite-cliche-a-world-filled-with-idio… […]
Comment from David Brin
Time January 21, 2013 at 9:06 pm
Stevem Johnson's screech at a strawman was hilarious. He howled at something in the mirror. That must be the source, because the opinions and positions that he attributes to me bear not even a glancing relationship to my own. How crowded it must be, in there.
Mark P… I not only spoke about such exceptional shows, I gave plenty of examples.
Space27 I agree that there are many methods to achieve protagonist isolation and among these might be a plethora of reasons why the character CHOOSES to handle things alone. I expressed respect for the range of these techniques, which sometimes are the most original and interesting aspects of a book or film. May aim was not to disdain all Tools of Isolation in storytelling!
Rather, I asked that writers be aware of what they are doing and try to satisfy their story-propelling needs without spreading unnecessary poison. They can isolate the protagonist from plot-killing help creatively, rather than reflexively leaning on the simplest means – by dismissing all of civilization, all people and all citizenship as worthless.
George Lucas's relentless reliance upon that crutch is the saddest aspect of what started out to be a fine and fun sfnal epic.
Comment from stevem johnson
Time January 22, 2013 at 4:06 am
The belief that there is some sort of "poison" in the plot necessity for physical jeopardy plots to dismiss helpful authority really is Prof. Brin's. The compatibility of this so-called poison with acceptance of things as they are is demonstrated in reality. It really is Prof. Brin who ignores this and assumes, without argument, that it is "poison." It really is Prof. Brin who accepts uncritically the value of physical jeopardy plots. He only criticizes "idiot" physical jeopardy plots that don't openly validate authority.
This is an extremely narrow-minded approach. But it is Prof. Brin's, not a strawman. It is dishonest to say so. The drivel about mirrors is nothing but mindless hostility. I say that the dismissal of authority for plot is not poison, but perfectly compatible with conservative views widely upheld. Further, I say that the emphasis on the individual in the depressingly near universal emphasis on physical jeopardy of the protagonist itself contains the cynicism about humanity that Prof. Brin supposedly detests. Except that he really only dislikes anything that insults his touchy vanity about, well, us (minus myself, of course.)
Comment from David Brin
Time January 22, 2013 at 11:52 am
Amazing. A civilized or adult person, when told "you are shouting at a strawman and not at me" would re-evaluate and re-read what he had previously skimmed. It is the honorable – even sane – thing to do. Given that we all skim in the modern era and are guilty of leaping to visceral, exaggerated or even sometimes false conclusions. Decent people take such a plea at face value and either back off or read carefully what had been skimmed.
Above all, if they insist that their characterization of the other person's position is correct, they back it up.
In this case, SteveM is a hysterical example of immaturity. He insists "Brin means this" when I have made clear that I said nothing that even remotely coincides with his accusation. Were I too have said
Comment from David Brin
Time January 22, 2013 at 11:55 am
(Continuing) … were I to have said the things he claims that I said, his response would be appropriate. But given that his delusional interpretation bears no correlation with anything even remotely said in the article, I can safely dismiss his complaints. I'll not engage or pay the slightest heed to him again.
Comment from Space27
Time January 22, 2013 at 1:05 pm
I realize my previous post is a little long-winded, and I did not give any examples to illustrate it. The 'world full of idiots' has been surprisingly widespread. However, it has not been present in all print and film.
David Brin, this perspective of yours is an okay article. Not merely okay, it made me think. It made me take a different look at ways to write, for professionals and the aspiring, and at better ways to read. That is, what the reader could look for in the stories being read, and the movies and TV being watched. The society-of-fools cliches you pointed out well, plus you connected it to other rampant cliches and routines.
I had not find in it anything disgusting or scheming, as Mike Lorrey has. Observing a general pattern and assessing it is not the act of attacking specific people in specific professions. Where do Big Brother and the cheerleading shills of media fit in?
Neither did I notice any anger or contempt, as stevem johnson did. How does pointing out a don't-trust-society cliche equate to an objection against all social criticism? Or how would that objection equate to charging people with denial of praise for institutions?
And the institutions this article refers to are the fictional institutions. Writers usually don't empathize or sympathize with the institutions in their stories and scripts. More usually so these days. But the instituitions in fiction are usually not meant to equate to the institutions of our real world. An observation of this is a comment on a general pattern of activity among artists. I don't see it as a serious condemnation of anything.
Comment from David Brin
Time January 22, 2013 at 2:39 pm
Thanks Space27. You just did while mature persons do… you paraphrased the other's position and sought to hear what he/she really said, not what would make a convenient strawman. Scarecrows are very convenient for silly people to rage at. I'd rather argue with adults and pepper my disputations with questions. Onward.
Comment from Kailey Rynne
Time January 25, 2013 at 5:33 am
David, it is so good to see someone address the question that always pops into my mind when I read works of fiction that depend upon "the Idiot Plot." Some good drama may come out of such a plot, but never a truly good book. Unfortunately, I think it is too often used with reckless abandon in my own genre, fantasy. Thank you for the thought-provoking essay!
However, I do want to point out that there's a bit of a flaw in your closing argument, where you say, "It's fine to criticize government and all the other centers of power, probing for their inevitable, arrogant error-modes. But we won't blanket-betray the nation that protected us, or the city whose cops we'd call, if we ever got into real trouble."
You're making the assumption that all writers are in fact depicting a society meant to represent and criticize their own society. Around the world, there are countries where the police will not come if you call, or where they are fundamentally corrupt. There are countries where institutions are incompetent and the term "government" is loosely applied. I was a little disappointed to see that you did not touch upon that point at all, especially since some of my favorite novels in fact draw inspiration from foreign civilizations.
I am not saying that taking one's inspiration from Somalia instead of the United States in itself redeems the "Idiot Plot." It does not. But I don't think it's entirely correct to say that an author or filmmaker who depicts a defunct civilization is "blanket-betraying the nation that protected us." Our world is more complex than that.
Comment from David Brin
Time January 25, 2013 at 3:53 pm
Kailey, excellent point. But I don't think it is incompatible with what I've said. I am fine even with portraying western/American civilization betrayed and utterly worthless! If the criticism being made has a point and is aimed at a plausible failure mode, then the tale may serve us all as a self-preventing prophecy, like Fahrenheit 451 or Nineteen Eighty-four.
What I consider dismal is simply positing the pathetic uselessness of your own civilization as a slothful reflex and then armwaving it away with cynicism or "it's just a story." When a little imagination and actual thought could have achieved the same story in a more realistic and less poisonous context.
Star Wars is a perfect example. The Republic did not have to be portrayed as 100% pathetically useless and stupid and incompetent. 90% would have sufficed. It was laziness. Nothing but.
Thanks and do please try to bring to fantasy some of the spirit of egalitarianism and progress that the real heroes – Ben Franklin & co – brought to all of us when they sparked the Enlightenment's rebellion against 6000 years of feudal lords. Hey, I like dragons as much as the next guy. But how about the blacksmith's daughter saves us next time? And forces the wizard to open a community college? 😉
Pingback from It's a Sci Fi World – moving forward from clichés to the future | CONTRARY BRIN
Time January 26, 2013 at 2:35 pm
[…] just-posted: "My Favorite Cliché: The Idiot Plot" – revealing the secret reason why civilization is treated with contempt by almost all novels […]
Comment from stevem johnson
Time January 27, 2013 at 11:09 am
From space27: "Neither did I notice any anger or contempt, as stevem johnson did. How does pointing out a don't-trust-society cliche equate to an objection against all social criticism? Or how would that objection equate to charging people with denial of praise for institutions?"
Sir/Ma'am, Prof. Brin accuses writers who write lazy personal jeopardy plots of "spreading poison." Those are his words, and they display "anger and contempt" on behalf of Authority. I'm surprised you missed this. Further, the fixation on the Hero is quite compatible with a dismal view of humanity in general, on whatever grounds. And a fixation on the Hero has led to individuals being invested with enormous "Authority." Personally, as I hoped I made clear, I find that more poisonous than slovenly dismissal of current institutions (or their future selves.)
As to your first question, Prof. Brin sometimes talks about society in general, but the phrase "Suspicion of Authority" makes it clear he is talking about current insitutions, even those in their supposed future incarnations. His caveat that he accepts a space for constructive criticisms of possible failure modes is not the broadminded, tolerant attitude he pretends. It is in fact a rather narrow one, i.e., restricted to what he deems a "plausible" failure mode! Sounding reasonable is not being reasonable. Instead of criticizing the fixation on the Hero, Prof. Brin's selective outrage at slovenly plotting is a demand for validation of Authority. He's mad about Suspicion of Authority. He would be pleased by validation of authority. This is offensive.
In your second question, your mischaracterize Prof. Brin's complaint as against "a don't-trust-society cliche." Prof. Brin isn't clear and consistent but his talk about institutions and "Suspicion of Authority" really are clear enough. Yeah, Prof. Brin wants the majority of plots to validate authority unless they pass his criteria for acceptably constructive criticism! That's why his essay is so weird and unpleasant.
From Kailey Rynne: "You're making the assumption that all writers are in fact depicting a society meant to represent and criticize their own society."
All fictions are about our own society in some fashion or another. Thus they always carry messages, whether intentional or not. I suppose you can measure the artisty by how much of the message is intentional instead of unintentional (and often self-contradictory.) One message of the Hero in Physical Jeopardy plot is that "I" as an individual can hope to win. This is not a message critical of society, but a denial of the need for human solidarity. On one side of his mouth Prof. Brin talks equality but out of the other side of his mouth he didains a side effect of a fixation on vicarious triumph of the self, not society. Don't listen to him.
Comment from David Brin
Time January 27, 2013 at 2:27 pm
One should deal with hypocrisy and delusion in careful stages. Hence (alas/apologies) I'll spend more time and space on stevem johnson than I oughta. It is because the meta of all of this is far more interesting than our unpleasant little tiff.
First SteveM clearly realizes that he engaged in strawmanning earlier, screeching at things I never even glancingly said. In his dishonest attempt to backpedal, he now (briefly) does what he should have done in the first place — he actually attempts to paraphrase what I actually said:
"Prof. Brin accuses writers who write lazy personal jeopardy plots of "spreading poison."
Well, well! He does make an actual attempt to paraphrase in that sentence. Bravo! Although this bears no relation or resemblance to his portrayals in earlier letters, it does now start resembling something I actually said. Alas it does not last. For next he says:
"Those are his words, and they display "anger and contempt" on behalf of Authority."
Okay, paraphrasing is done, now we return to howling strawmanning. Put aside the fact that they were not MY words but his paraphrasing, plus that "anger and contempt" are in quotation marks, implying I used them. No, shrug those infelicities aside. What matters here is his outright lie about meaning.
In fact, my essay carefully parses the importance of directed criticism of authority — and praises it with the highest encomium that any artwork can achieve — that of "self-preventing prophecy." Indeed I cite dozens of examples and credit such Suspicion of Authority (SOA) works with preserving freedom and our very existence on this planet today. Um, that offers a pretty steep slope against which he must assert that I mean the diametric opposite.
Further, he conflates even my objection to the LAZY idiot plot tales. I do not ask those dismally slothful tales to bow and scrape before authority. I merely ask that they not lazily _universalize_ their message of contempt for civilization. That they perhaps not disparage ALL or ANY possibility that citizenship or civilization can EVER work. Indeed, in the counter examples that I give, it is not authority figures who are most helpful, but average citizens.
In purely logical terms, then… stevem johnson knowingly tells a complete boner.
But none of that really matters. What merits some discussion with the rest of you is some dissection of his his ex cathedra declaration of my vile motives. Not because I expect him to listen, but because some of you may find it interesting:
Our modern tendency is to construe in other people the simplest possible motives, depending upon whether – on impulse – we define the other person as "with us" or "against us." This is an affect of an addictive mental state, voluptuously pleasurable, called self-righteous indignation. Just look in a mirror, the next time you are indignant and try denying that it feels grand! I've given scientific papers at the National Institutes on Drugs and Addiction on this plague that has mutated our generation from being pragmatic negotiators and problem solvers into a nation of very silly people, outraged at the slant of a hat. Indeed, it is the moral and mental vice that the Idiot Plot most eagerly caters-to.
But that is not my main point here. My point is one of ancient courtesy. When you denounce another person with "You believe that…!" and fill in some horrid thing, you are honor bound to NOTICE when that other person replies with:
"Sir, you misconstrue."
When that happens, one is behooved to pause. To re-read carefully that which had been skimmed. To tear down the impulsive strawman and use paraphrasing to build instead a sculpture. To consider the other person's voice and take his word on his stated surface intent. Above all, not to claim powers of mind-reading.
That does not rule out indignant disagreement! You might then proclaim "You SEEM to be saying…" or even "You have IN EFFECT argued for something you claim not to believe!"
That is still very aggressive and trodding dangerous ground, and you are then obligated to cite chapter and verse. The burden of proof is upon you. But at least that approach is sane.
I have no hope or expectation that stevem johnson will parse, absorb, or even non-skim read any of that. But it is wisdom, whatever you think personally of me.
Indeed, it is only in hope that some of the rest of you will find it interesting that I bothered to respond at all to this deeply … to this person.
Persevere and explore
david b
Comment from David Brin
Time January 27, 2013 at 2:30 pm
Again, apologies for that mini-essay. I do get carried away! The only important part is near the end, starting with the paragraph just above "Sir, you misconstrue."
Anyway, plug on!
Pingback from Catching a Dragon » The "I'm Spartacus!" moment
Time January 27, 2013 at 11:07 pm
[…] David Brin has an interesting article on Locus Online about "why films and novels routinely depict society and its citizens as fools." He points out […]
Comment from DavidTC
Time January 28, 2013 at 8:49 am
I think the real problem is not fiction that has institutions being in failure mode, but fiction that does not _address_ such failure mode.
There is fiction like, as mentioned, Independence Day, where institutions behave as reasonable as can be expected, even if, for narrative purposes, single individuals are needed to save the day. This is fine.
And there is fiction like The Wire (Warning: I have not actually see that) where the failure of institutions, and what is wrong with them, is itself the plot. This is also fine, and in fact, often what society needs. (At least, when the failure is somewhat grounded in actual problems, and not strange conspiracy nonsense.)
But there are two more possibilities. The third is when there is a complete breakdown in social institutions due to the problems of the fiction, and no one has a problem with that. Now, in some cases, this is somewhat understandable…if WWIII happens, the police probably are going to be slow to respond, and everyone sorta expects that. Or during the Fugitive, there's a rather obvious reason he can't rely on any social institution.
But often this is just weird when the problem is localized…sure, the national guard might not believe that zombies have taken over your town, but the fact they can't reach anyone in a position of authority in the town should result in them showing up anyway. Likewise, if the local cops are corrupt…that's what the FBI is for. So there _is_ normally functioning social institutions, but somehow they _all_ disappear during emergencies.
That actually *is* a problem, and probably helped result in things like the Katrina response: Oh, it's an *emergency*, and we're the authorities…we're allowed to be incompetent. No. No you're not.
Although, as bright note, the end of the movie is often signaled by the return of institutions, which is basically admitting that they are vastly more competent than the heroes and their existence completely negates the problem.
And the fourth possibility is even worse. When there's not a 'breakdown' per se in the movie, but the institutions never worked, and _no one saw that as a problem_. You get the sense that no one expects the government to actually function at any point.
That is, I think, the biggest problem. Fiction where institutions are never useful.
Star Wars is actually this later type. Palpatine didn't 'break' the Republic government, it already didn't work in any useful manner.
Comment from Mike Emery
Time January 28, 2013 at 10:50 am
Brin's depiction of the iconic individual vs. idiotic masses characterizes every Heinlein novel ever written. It's not that far of a stretch from "fans are slans," in fact. The Hollywoodization of storytelling, and its deleterious influence on sf in particular, adds La-La Land's contempt for everyone outside of Orange County (or Studio City, unless you're looking at films like "The Player," which include Studio City as well). That contempt is programmed into their own projects, which the filmmakers themselves wouldn't walk across the street to see. The contemptuousness is political, and akin to H. G. Wells's notion of the "resentful slacker" (in his book "'42 to '44"), who is so offended he is not considered more important that he refuses to do his job. In short, I agree with Brin, but for different reasons than he offers.
Comment from David Brin
Time January 28, 2013 at 12:50 pm
Mike Emery, I agree that there are elements akin to those you describe, though I don't think it's as universal as you suggest. Indeed, while my diagnosis is laziness, yours assigns blame to evil character… an assignment which is (forgive me) dripping in "contempt" for those you oppose. Moreover, if I might speak up (slightly) for Heinlein, his tales often do feature central or peripheral roles for the heroic everyman bystander. Moreover, I can think of a few novels in which institutions are not portrayed as utterly hopeless.
Still, you raise good points. Thanks. – db
Comment from Mike Emery
Time January 28, 2013 at 9:56 pm
Not trying to get into a shooting war here. I've got limited space and depend on generalization. I'm trying to characterize the "idiot plot" you note, as well as "idiot characters" (or as David Denby in "The New Yorker" put it , caricature is the mode of character in the standard-issue film). I'm not saying that Hollywood is evil. I would say most in current Hollywood lack character, or that producers triumph over others in the so-called "collaborative art" of filmmaking. The bigger blockbuster films have gotten, the more I have turned to small films. I'd much rather resee "Once" than "Prometheus." The overvaluing of producers (and asst. producers, line producers, etc.) for films was largely triggered by the wild success of of films like "Star Wars" (1977). I liked that film a lot, but its influence on Hollywood was not positive, nor was its influence on the sf novel positive. It encouraged publishers to retreat to junk fiction rather than the kind of original, challenging work Brin is known for. I happily concede Heinlein is better balanced in some books (I love "Harsh Mistress"), and I have read all of Heinlein (to 1973 work) and like him a lot. I also like the film "Ironman" (2008). And Brin's "NatuLife TM" (1994) is one of my favorite stories of the '90s.
Comment from David Brin
Time January 29, 2013 at 10:03 am
Thanks Mike. I don't see any major argument here. Even where I somewhat disagree I found your remarks both courteous and thought provoking. Alas, the biggest character flaw in Hollywood today – I believe – is storytelling cowardice… which is a close cousin of laziness.
All best and persevere — db
Comment from Phil Konstantin
Time January 29, 2013 at 11:13 am
My favorite retort to someone watching a movie who says "why would they do that?" is "Because the script says so."
Comment from Petar Belic
Time January 29, 2013 at 6:37 pm
David, as usual, a thought-provoking piece. But I can't help but think that this position comes from the comfortable armchair point of view on a reasonably well-to-do person. For many people, in many countries, societal institutions have indeed failed – from their perspective. Their own governments are inimical to their very existence. Perhaps in a Western Liberal Democracy, the middle and upper classes can get on board the 'Idiot Plot' as a trope, but for the rest of the hoi-polloi, this seems all too familiar. Government, religions, philosophers (sorry I had to!), economists, civic leaders and scientists, seem to have failed them, when even basic medical needs can't be met by the state. Tellingly, however, the story-telling channels we have right now though, the POV is usually the reasonably well-off hero. In delightful contrast to this, I was interested to see "Beasts of the Southern Wild" present a protagonist really living on the edge of the current world economic model and doing it's best to present the world from her point of view.
Having said all this, hurrah for critiques of lazy narratives. Organisations can certainly be 'heroes'. I can imagine the Librarians at Tanith heroically and patiently reorganising and democratising knowledge right now…
Comment from David Brin
Time January 30, 2013 at 10:57 am
Petar Belic thanks for cogent remarks. I too liked "Beasts" and loved the irony that the protagonists' adversary-foes were among the nicest and most well-meaning members of civilization, genuinely trying to help… but that civilization itself was something the characters wanted no part of. As I said repeatedly in my article, I don't mind such denunciations … if that's the artist's actual point! If a point is being made. As in 1984 or Dr. Strangelove.
It is the lazy HABIT of reflexive contempt for everything that might possibly work… that's what I condemn. Sure, institutions are corrupt in much of the developing world… as they were in the U.S. during the Wild West days.. There is a path toward seizing and reforming such institutions and it requires confidence and courage and belief in citizenship, all of which are dissed and disdained by idiot plot tales.
I am in these trenches: e.g. my nonfiction book The Transparent Society: Will Technology Make Us Choose Between Privacy and Freedom? And my long support for Peter Gabriel's PROJECT WITNESS (look it up) which provides video equipment so that activists in developing nations can record corruption. In EARTH (1989) I forecast what is now happening, a gradual rise in 3rd world rage vs Swiss and other banks that shelter trillions stolen from poor nations by kleptocratic lords. This will reach a head of steam in the 2020s.
But only if we reinforce rather than undermine the notion that the common folk aren't sheep. And here you are mistaken. It is in WESTERN art that the idiot plot is most intensely pushed. It is out of Hollywood that the poison is injected most-fiercely, that there is no such thing as citizenship.
Comment from Space27
Time January 30, 2013 at 11:00 am
A shooting war? Who intended to have a shooting war here? Disagreements and debates, yes, but a war….I don't mind a little friendly sparring now and then.
I see the Idiot Plot as the Typical Overused Plot, but with some conveniences and creativity supplied by idiocy. I see idiocy as coming from various sources: characters who are idiotic; characters who are competent but do idiotic things; and plot points that are idiotic regardless of the competence of characters and their actions. I have a loose definition of idiocy and idiot plots. I regard many of the movies in theaters, on video and in reruns as having idiot plots. Humphrey Bogart once said, as a character in a backstage drama, "He's not a scriptwriter, he's a popcorn salesman!"
Comment from Mike Emery
Time January 30, 2013 at 12:56 pm
One of my favorite quotes is from Martin Heidegger, from "On the Question Concerning Technology," that "questioning is the piety of thought." I have gotten tired of certain people thinking they know more than the rest of us, how we should think, feel, vote, and spend our money. I can decide all those things for myself, thank you. I wonder whether the idiot plot/character/film/story doesn't somehow evolve out of a desire to tip the balance in favor of a particular view the reader/viewer is not supposed to embrace. If he does, then he has to admit he's an idiot too.
Comment from David Brin
Time January 30, 2013 at 2:55 pm
The thing about Suspicion of Authority (SoA) as a modern western meme is that it has yin and yang aspects. It doe promote individualism, originality, creativity, Heinleinian self–reliance… and it is the basis for "T Cell" immune responses that help civilization to target errors before or as they are happening. Because, if you name any center of authority, there is a bunch of people nursing a cult of suspicion toward it! That is very healthy!
But it creates ironies. The average decent liberal frets about undue power concentrated in the hands of feudal-style aristocrats and faceless corporations. The average decent conservative wrings hands over snooty academics and faceless govt bureaucrats. When you put it that way, there's but one proper response:
Blatantly, Big Brother could come to us from the civil service. It HAS slammed us down and cauterized freedom and markets from the oligarchy in 99% of human cultures. Both are right to worry and we guard each others' backs!
Alas, when you combine SoA with a plague of addiction to the malignant drug high of indignation, the result is that each of us thinks we INVENTED SoA! We assume the other side could not possible be motivated by legitimate fear of "your" favorite elites. And never admit that you suckled SoA as a pervasive propaganda meme from all the movies you ever loved.
Pingback from Cinema | Pearltrees
Time January 30, 2013 at 3:20 pm
[…] Locus Online Perspectives » David Brin: Our Favorite Cliché — A World Filled With Idiots…, or,… […]
Comment from stevem johnson
Time January 30, 2013 at 8:13 pm
Space27, just to be sure, you do agree that personal jeopardy plots that conveniently assume authorities (and, as an aftethought, people in general) to be dysfunctional or corrupt are spreading poison? And don't agree that a fixation on individual heroes is worse? You also agree that constructive criticism of failure modes aimed at preventive prophecy is the very narrow exception?
I ask because if you agree with these absurd propositions, your complacency about idiot plots is very strange. Prof. Brin will not admit that the Hero fixation undermines citizenship. Instead, a side effect, false assumptions about the futility of institutions (and as an afterthough, people in general,) offend his tender regard for institutions. Apparently citizenship is defined as a fundamental adherence to institutions. How extraordinary! Still, by those bizarre lights, Prof. Brin has a reason to write an angry essay.
But no one who is just interested in good plotting vs. lazy plotting should be so foolish as to call this poison, or accept such hyperbole. The issue is about how this applies to the real world. After all we are talking about the literary opinions of someone who apparently believes that Silent Spring is a novel (and also still needs his seal of approval!) Or that the anti-TV message of Fahrenheit 451 was a preventive prophecy. Or that 1984 was somehow critical of authority, except for not fighting Communism hard enough. Or that Brave New World has to be justified as a preventive prophecy against genetic engineering of humans. (Or possibly against sexual freedoms that include contraception and abortion?) Is this the kind of literary perceptiveness you really want to take guidance from?
From Mike Emery: "I wonder whether the idiot plot/character/film/story doesn't somehow evolve out of a desire to tip the balance in favor of a particular view the reader/viewer is not supposed to embrace. If he does, then he has to admit he's an idiot too." Yes. There are different kinds of authority. The political Hero, who throws aside customary restraints and piddling laws and makes the hard moral choices (which always means hurting someone else) is one whose narrative requires that institutions (and other people, not his supporters) must be regarded as failed. The reason why they are dysfunctional may be attributed to original sin, or to violations of the free market (to name the two most popular,) but this does mean that this narrative is truly critical of institutions. The near universal emphasis on the Hero stems is one of the few acceptable forms of discourse in a society which is resolutely opposed to genuine criticism of social institutions, or society. Slanders against humanity like original sin or economic man are always welcome however.
Comment from Space27
Time January 30, 2013 at 11:49 pm
Actually, stevem, I do not agree that personal jeopardy plots are spreading poison. I also do not think that Mr. Brin meant to equate such plots with that. I took the phrase "spreading poison" as a metaphor, and a loosely applied one at that.
Plot complications provided by authorities (or institutions, or whole populations) that are made nasty or silly for a writer's convenience, tend to be in common thrillers as the echoing or mimicking of certain older plots which had intended to criticize or satirize certain real-life authorities/institutions/populations. Often an original and serious work is followed my many inferior and pretentious knockoffs. A Brave New World gets a dozen Idiocracies. A Road Warrior gets infinite Deathlands and Outlanders. The paint-by-numbers cautionary tale is not as good as the real thing. Convenient complications get old.
And what is Brin's "tender regard for institutions"? Do we know how many institutions, establishments and entities there are on Earth? More than we can count. Some of them have even been given personhood. But, already like people in a smaller way, they come in different sizes, shapes and colors. They're so many and so diverse, one cannot like them all, or hate them all either. Some of them are in conflict with eachother. The institutions can take care of themselves. Why would an individual feel much concern for them? I mean, the State Farm insurance company was never there for me "like a good neighbor".
Comment from Mike Emery
Time January 31, 2013 at 8:53 am
Thank you, Space27, for mentioning specific films. Generalizations have their limitations. The prototype of good films attacking institutions, or Hollywood wagging its finger at other parts of society, is typified by "Wall Street," which decimates investing by showing how it can be subverted from within. But it shows how another institution can answer that subversion.
I teach my students to identify slanted language, and not use it themselves, when they do argumentation. I wonder whether the idiot plot/character is a form of slanted language ("Can we afford to let hardened criminals out of prison early to renew their war on society?").
Comment from David Brin
Time January 31, 2013 at 12:01 pm
I would normally cease responding to a rude person after two attempts. stevemjohnson persists in shoving stupid strawmen in front of me and proclaiming "Brin believes this!" without a scintilla of logic or evidence.
I confess, there is a silver lining – rather endearing – in watching his style of backpedaling. If you read his passages carefully, you'll see successive brief "attempts" to paraphrase. Alas tendentiously, to shore up strawmen. Still, paraphrasing is one thing people do, when trying to find a mature path out of rigid arguments, so I read earnestly. Earlier, stevem's salvoes were hilariously like calling out squares in BATTLESHIP that were in different oceans. e.g. ranting that I demanded that all art kowtow to all authority. An assertion so counterfactual that I could not even be amused, only concerned for his health.
His latest iteration is at least on the same game board. Alas, that is all the good I can glean. My point was that sloth motivates many storytellers to disdain ANY chance that any institutions or common citizens can EVER contribute to solutions. His insistence that I meant something disgustingly different, just in order to cram "Prof Brin" into his outrage-addiction, is becoming tiresome.
Fortunately, his subsequent paragraph-railings eviscerate any remaining credibility. I am even able to suppress my residual moment of curiosity over WTF he means by the Hero Fixation, a new element that he assumes we should all instantly grasp. I am always alert for puzzling or newish sounding ideas and feel tempted…
… but no. This is over. I'll not have any more truck with this deeply rude and unbalanced person. Fortunately, – as we've seen – stevem is quite capable of holding ongoing raging arguments with others who are figments entirely of his own concoction. So rage on without me.
Comment from Space27
Time January 31, 2013 at 6:50 pm
A brilliant article followed by a thoughtful thread, but it had to be scorched by a flamer. I tried to converse with stevem without any rage on my own part. Maybe I played the role of an inflatable clown, ignoring all the punches and bouncing back up to continue a dialogue. Not hard to do when it's all with words. Why can't we just play with our Play-Dough without somebody throwing their at another, or accusing another of hogging all the red? It's just ideas.
Comment from Mike Emery
Time February 1, 2013 at 7:49 am
Oh, come on. It's the Internet, where nobody knows anything.
Comment from stevem johnson
Time February 2, 2013 at 6:31 am
From Space27: "And what is Brin's 'tender regard for institutions?"
Prof. Brin wrote, "Cops won't answer when you call. Or they'll arrive late. Or if they come in time, they'll prove staggeringly inept. Or else, if they swoop in swiftly and seem competent, they will turn out to be in cahoots with the bad guy.
Now imagine that your typical film director ever found herself in real trouble, or the novelist fell afoul of deadly peril. What would they do? They would dial 9-1-1! They'd call for help and expect – demand – swift-competent intervention by skilled professionals who are tax-paid, to deal with urgent matters skillfully and well. In other words there is a stark disconnect between the world that film-makers live in, and the worlds that they portray. An absolute opposite of expectation."
Prof. Brin is upset about movies where the police are not depicted favorably enough! When I answered your question about Prof. Brin's anger and contempt, it was because I assumed it was honestly meant. I'm not longer so certain, as you didn't respond. You seem to be excusing the "poison" charge, obviously an angry and contemptuous one given how absurd it is in a real world context, as merely a "loose metaphor." So? It's a malicious metaphor. I asked you three questions. You ignore two, and rephrase the other to mean something different, confusing the issue. You congratulate yourself on your lack of rage, which is all very nice I suppose. But you are not conversing with me. It's hard to see where you've made any effort to engage.
My criticism of Prof. Brin was harsh, but fair. There was no rebuttal of arguments because he didn't make any, he merely asserted an argument. I even offered a counterargument, equally unsupported, it's true. But unless the real problem is that it is lese majeste to criticize a published author even when he says something so extreme, it's no more invalid than the original essay. Plus, it was a hell of a lot shorter.
You want to discuss supporting evidence from films? Try The Lord of the Flies. That's hugely important on this general topic. But the essay runs so long because it must carefully limit the topic, so that its anger and contempt for incidental negative portrayals of authority (more or less identified with humanity!) as "poison."
What do you want? You're the one who claimed not to see any evidence of anger and contempt on Prof. Brin's part. And you did so in a way that made it an attack on my post. Fine, I responded civilly. You seem to feel that you've been jabbed. Pointed questions are not an assault. What you've posted really does contradict Prof. Brin's extreme views, yet you insist you find his "brilliant." You even go so far as to talk about "a flamer" but the only flamer here is Prof. Brin.
Comment from stevem johnson
Time February 2, 2013 at 6:34 am
Sorry, my typing and proofreading skills are an imposition. For those who actually read the post, the sentence fragment in the penultimate paragraph was meant to end "'poison,' seem reasonable."
Comment from David Brin
Time February 2, 2013 at 11:02 am
X-22… miss! …. Y-14… miss! …. V-44… miss! Mirrorboy dances with self….
Pingback from Weekly List Bookmarks (weekly) | Eccentric Eclectica @ ToddSuomela.com
Time February 2, 2013 at 4:45 pm
[…] Locus Online Perspectives » David Brin: Our Favorite Cliché — A World Filled With Idiots…, or,… […]
Pingback from Science Fiction and Our Duty to the Past | CONTRARY BRIN
Time February 3, 2013 at 12:09 pm
[…] few try as hard to break cliches. My classic essay: "The Idiot Plot" – showing why civilization is treated with contempt by almost all novels and films […]