Wed Reading Meme
May. 31st, 2017 08:33 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. What I just finished reading?
The drakon trilogy by Shannon Abe, which included "The Smoke Thief", "The Dream Thief", and "The Queen of Dragons".
While she's good at witty dialogue, the writer sucks at plotting and structure. And while I adored "The Smoke Thief", the later two books don't quite work, in part because for some reason or other she feels this need to write a first person expository perspective that pops up intermittently in book. For example, first chapter (hero's pov), second chapter (heroine's pov), third chapter - brother's pov, fourth chapter -- some weird omniscient party commenting on everything in first person perspective. I thought it was the heroine for a bit, but then I realized it couldn't be, so I've really no idea. While certainly ambitious, it was mainly jarring and disruptive of the action, also added nothing to the story. I skimmed after a while.
The last book in the trilogy, Queen of Dragons, irritated me. There's a plot about the hero's brother (Rhys) and a little girl (Honor) being taken, and his sister (Lia) and her husband (Zane) (from the last novel) infiltrating the sanf ( the drakon hunter sect) in order to protect and save the sister's family of drakon. Also, the hero/heroine (Kit/Rue) from the first book have mysteriously disappeared without a trace -- to find the hero/heroine (Zane/Lia) from the second book. But...this plot sort of takes place off-page. And every once and awhile pops up. Also, there's subplot about the brother who was taken by the drakon hunters, Rhys, being in love with the heroine as well -- but this dropped when he's kidnapped. The heroine, Mari, finds him, but loses him when she's taken by the hunters, one of which is the hero from the previous book, Zane. Zane uses the Dramur or dreaming diamond to keep her from turning into a drakon. He's trying to keep everyone safe as a double-agent. But can't keep the sanf from torturing her. Before they do, she's rescued in dramatic fashion by the hero, Kimber. Kimber and Mari go back to Kimber's house, he recuperates, they swear their love for each other. The end.
And I'm thinking...okay, but what about Rhys, Zane, his wife, the missing girl Honor, the missing Marquess and Marchioness (the hero/heroine from the Smoke Thief).
Confused? Yeah, so was I. The damn book gave me a headache.
Like I said, bad plotting.
Also read a review in The Economist on a new book that I'd been flirting with by David Goodhart entitled The Road to Somewhere: The Populist Revolt and the Future of Politics is published by C Hurst & Co.
And realized, I sort of agree with the reviewer, although I admittedly have not read the book. But mainly I don't think I agree with either on the depiction of the divide or I find myself heavily questioning it - which would pose problems in reading the book. It could just piss me off. And I'm trying to avoid things that piss me off. (grins)
And of course, now the silly Economist won't let me access it again without subscribing so, I had to go to the Guardian and read its review. Which sort of agreed with the Economist, interestingly enough and I found myself agreeing with. (I like The Economist slightly better, because it's less emotionally charged, and more objective in its analysis, at least for the most part. But the Guardian is cheaper and easier to access, so there's that.)
He argues that the key faultline in Britain and elsewhere now separates those who come from Somewhere – rooted in a specific place or community, usually a small town or in the countryside, socially conservative, often less educated – and those who could come from Anywhere: footloose, often urban, socially liberal and university educated. He cites polling evidence to show that Somewheres make up roughly half the population, with Anywheres accounting for 20% to 25% and the rest classified as “Inbetweeners”.
I don't agree with this categorization. Too many generalizations. Although it may work in Britain, (or not according to the Guardian) it doesn't quite work here.
Let me try to explain.
My difficulty with post-election/post-Brexit analysis from both sides of the spectrum, is my own personal experiences with various people across the spectrum tends to sort of blow their theories apart. I was talking to my mother about this over the phone, she lives on a island populated by Anywhere's who voted for and in some cases supported Trump, while various family members are Somewhere's who voted for and in some cases supported Hillary and Bernie Sanders. My uncle, is an Anywhere (as part of his profession, he's never rooted much in one place), and a Catholic Priest, who voted for Trump because of the abortion issue. While his best friend, is also an Anywhere, and very liberal. My other uncle, far less educated, fits the Somewhere description, but despises Trump and would never have voted for him and is incredibly liberal. He does fit it in a lot of ways. And two other uncles, both military guys, hate technology, hate Trump, and fit the Somewhere depiction, would not have voted for Brexit or Trump.
I also work with people who defy the categories the writer has set up.
And even how Somewheres and Anywheres are defined doesn't entirely work, because I know people, including myself who are a combo of both - I guess we are in-betweeners? And, here's the thing some of that, you can't control. I didn't choose to move around as much as I did. I was talking to someone at work about it...I said, most people in Texas live their entire lives in Texas, unlike New Yorkers...than stopped, and said, no, wait, there are Long Islander's who've never left Long Island. And heck, I've lived here well on 20 years, hate moving, and have been known to stay in the same crappy apt as long as I can.
I have problems with the post-election and pre-election labeling, categorizing and name-calling. Just the other day, a co-worker was condemning everyone who voted for Trump as not educated or a critical thinker - and I don't think that is necessarily true, because I've met people and know people who did and are. A Iranian woman that I met in Costa Rica. Heck, many of the Syrian refugees were Trump supporters.
We want to paint the other in shades of black and ourselves in shades of white or vice versa, when in reality, I think we're more shades of pink, green, purple, and vermillion.
One of the things I've learned over the years is how incredibly easy it is to demonize people who think and act differently. And how incredibly unproductive and destructive that can be to everyone involved. I don't know about anyone else, but I need to do better. I think learning to be patient and to truly listen, regardless of what is said, might help. Even if, it can be incredibly hard at times -- like today, for example.
2. What I'm reading now?
Eh, a bunch of stuff.
* Let's Develop! by Fred Neuman -- basically a primer on social group psychology and emotional/creative developmental psychology
*White Hot by Illona Andrews
* Joss Whedon's Wonder Woman Script -- which I'm going to try to access on my ipad via email download.
And whatever else...catches my eye.
The drakon trilogy by Shannon Abe, which included "The Smoke Thief", "The Dream Thief", and "The Queen of Dragons".
While she's good at witty dialogue, the writer sucks at plotting and structure. And while I adored "The Smoke Thief", the later two books don't quite work, in part because for some reason or other she feels this need to write a first person expository perspective that pops up intermittently in book. For example, first chapter (hero's pov), second chapter (heroine's pov), third chapter - brother's pov, fourth chapter -- some weird omniscient party commenting on everything in first person perspective. I thought it was the heroine for a bit, but then I realized it couldn't be, so I've really no idea. While certainly ambitious, it was mainly jarring and disruptive of the action, also added nothing to the story. I skimmed after a while.
The last book in the trilogy, Queen of Dragons, irritated me. There's a plot about the hero's brother (Rhys) and a little girl (Honor) being taken, and his sister (Lia) and her husband (Zane) (from the last novel) infiltrating the sanf ( the drakon hunter sect) in order to protect and save the sister's family of drakon. Also, the hero/heroine (Kit/Rue) from the first book have mysteriously disappeared without a trace -- to find the hero/heroine (Zane/Lia) from the second book. But...this plot sort of takes place off-page. And every once and awhile pops up. Also, there's subplot about the brother who was taken by the drakon hunters, Rhys, being in love with the heroine as well -- but this dropped when he's kidnapped. The heroine, Mari, finds him, but loses him when she's taken by the hunters, one of which is the hero from the previous book, Zane. Zane uses the Dramur or dreaming diamond to keep her from turning into a drakon. He's trying to keep everyone safe as a double-agent. But can't keep the sanf from torturing her. Before they do, she's rescued in dramatic fashion by the hero, Kimber. Kimber and Mari go back to Kimber's house, he recuperates, they swear their love for each other. The end.
And I'm thinking...okay, but what about Rhys, Zane, his wife, the missing girl Honor, the missing Marquess and Marchioness (the hero/heroine from the Smoke Thief).
Confused? Yeah, so was I. The damn book gave me a headache.
Like I said, bad plotting.
Also read a review in The Economist on a new book that I'd been flirting with by David Goodhart entitled The Road to Somewhere: The Populist Revolt and the Future of Politics is published by C Hurst & Co.
And realized, I sort of agree with the reviewer, although I admittedly have not read the book. But mainly I don't think I agree with either on the depiction of the divide or I find myself heavily questioning it - which would pose problems in reading the book. It could just piss me off. And I'm trying to avoid things that piss me off. (grins)
And of course, now the silly Economist won't let me access it again without subscribing so, I had to go to the Guardian and read its review. Which sort of agreed with the Economist, interestingly enough and I found myself agreeing with. (I like The Economist slightly better, because it's less emotionally charged, and more objective in its analysis, at least for the most part. But the Guardian is cheaper and easier to access, so there's that.)
He argues that the key faultline in Britain and elsewhere now separates those who come from Somewhere – rooted in a specific place or community, usually a small town or in the countryside, socially conservative, often less educated – and those who could come from Anywhere: footloose, often urban, socially liberal and university educated. He cites polling evidence to show that Somewheres make up roughly half the population, with Anywheres accounting for 20% to 25% and the rest classified as “Inbetweeners”.
I don't agree with this categorization. Too many generalizations. Although it may work in Britain, (or not according to the Guardian) it doesn't quite work here.
Let me try to explain.
My difficulty with post-election/post-Brexit analysis from both sides of the spectrum, is my own personal experiences with various people across the spectrum tends to sort of blow their theories apart. I was talking to my mother about this over the phone, she lives on a island populated by Anywhere's who voted for and in some cases supported Trump, while various family members are Somewhere's who voted for and in some cases supported Hillary and Bernie Sanders. My uncle, is an Anywhere (as part of his profession, he's never rooted much in one place), and a Catholic Priest, who voted for Trump because of the abortion issue. While his best friend, is also an Anywhere, and very liberal. My other uncle, far less educated, fits the Somewhere description, but despises Trump and would never have voted for him and is incredibly liberal. He does fit it in a lot of ways. And two other uncles, both military guys, hate technology, hate Trump, and fit the Somewhere depiction, would not have voted for Brexit or Trump.
I also work with people who defy the categories the writer has set up.
And even how Somewheres and Anywheres are defined doesn't entirely work, because I know people, including myself who are a combo of both - I guess we are in-betweeners? And, here's the thing some of that, you can't control. I didn't choose to move around as much as I did. I was talking to someone at work about it...I said, most people in Texas live their entire lives in Texas, unlike New Yorkers...than stopped, and said, no, wait, there are Long Islander's who've never left Long Island. And heck, I've lived here well on 20 years, hate moving, and have been known to stay in the same crappy apt as long as I can.
I have problems with the post-election and pre-election labeling, categorizing and name-calling. Just the other day, a co-worker was condemning everyone who voted for Trump as not educated or a critical thinker - and I don't think that is necessarily true, because I've met people and know people who did and are. A Iranian woman that I met in Costa Rica. Heck, many of the Syrian refugees were Trump supporters.
We want to paint the other in shades of black and ourselves in shades of white or vice versa, when in reality, I think we're more shades of pink, green, purple, and vermillion.
One of the things I've learned over the years is how incredibly easy it is to demonize people who think and act differently. And how incredibly unproductive and destructive that can be to everyone involved. I don't know about anyone else, but I need to do better. I think learning to be patient and to truly listen, regardless of what is said, might help. Even if, it can be incredibly hard at times -- like today, for example.
2. What I'm reading now?
Eh, a bunch of stuff.
* Let's Develop! by Fred Neuman -- basically a primer on social group psychology and emotional/creative developmental psychology
*White Hot by Illona Andrews
* Joss Whedon's Wonder Woman Script -- which I'm going to try to access on my ipad via email download.
And whatever else...catches my eye.
no subject
Date: 2017-06-04 04:42 pm (UTC)I just googled him. Not nice :(
Oh, this makes me want to actually see the musical. I hadn't realised that was what it was about.
no subject
Date: 2017-06-04 09:32 pm (UTC)just googled Andrew Jackson. Not nice :(
No, really not. My father who has read two biographies on Jackson told my sister-in-law once that there was nothing redeemable about him. Another example of why populist Presidents are bad ideas. They are more destructive than constructive.
Oh, this makes me want to actually see the musical. I hadn't realised that was what it was about.
Oh, I don't know if the musical focuses so much on that aspect, as more on Hamiltion himself...but it does focus a bit on the politics at play and the backroom battles. The book goes into more detail. And demonstrates that we are seeing now, and in 2016...played out in the 1700s and 1800s as well.
There's a blogger on lj that is posting about British politics and the manifestos. He's center-left, but his posts are rather objective. (at ATPOTCH ). I tried reading it all and got confused.
Hamilton wanted a centralized government, but his fellow founders of the US didn't, because, hello didn't they just fight to get away from all of that?
He won and he didn't win. I know, confusing. It was an on-going battle for most of the 1800s resulting finally in the Civil War. Still wasn't resolved exactly and goes on today.
Our Federal government is sort of like a more powerful version of the European Union. Each state in the US has it's own constitution, own police force, own health care system, own governing bodies, own laws, etc, which in some cases supersede the Federal laws. That's what Trump has discovered the hard way -- that in some cases the States have more power and can do what they want. Like, for instance, decide to ignore immigrant bans and become a sanctuary state. Or ignore the federal government's decision to stop following the Paris Climate Accords. The States can pretty much turn their back on the Federal government in this regard and impose their own laws, etc.
The Federal Supreme Court often will uphold State laws as long as they do not conflict with the Federal US Constitution. There's a lot of Justices on the US Supreme Court who put State's rights first. DOMA and the anti-same sex marriage laws failed under the US Supreme Court because they violated the US Constitution. And that governs pretty much everything -- but it is written in such a way that allows for State rights in some cases, and federal in others. And it governs the branches of our government and their powers, they check each other.
Our politics is very different, because when we have a candidate run for President, people vote for the candidate not the party's platform or manifesto. In fact most voters don't even know what the candidates stand for or where they stand on the issues. Clinton's problem in the US is she didn't really have much of a platform or clear message, so much as anti-Trump and support what Obama did. She was also considered part of the establishment.
People, here, vote for the candidates not platforms, nor are issues truly discussed.
While in the UK, it appears to be more about the party's manifesto or platform and less about the individuals running. I may be wrong about that, but that was the impression I got from reading TCH's political blog.
no subject
Date: 2017-06-05 05:53 am (UTC)I am starting to think that we have to accept that democracy will occasionally produce populists. And maybe this is actually a good thing, because it is a release mechanism, akin to the immune system purging disease. Disease does build up in even the best political system, with the elite always inclined to harden into an oligarchy if they are not checked, and only proper free democracy can deal with that, but the purging mechanism that often arises is a populist. What is vital is that the underlying institutions are strong enough that the populist themself does not then morph into a dictator. The constitution of the German Weimar Republic was not strong enough. So far, the US constitution is giving every sign that it is.
Which to my mind implies that there is no single fixed point that is ideal, and the very fact that there is still tension, and the exact balance of power can flow and change at need, is a strength of the system not a weakness. But then I always look at everything through an organic and ecological lens. I far prefer evolved systems to created ones :)
Thank you for the detailed explanation of the balances in your system. Some of it I knew but some is new to me. I always find that the more I find out about your system the more I admire it. It was given a good solid foundation in the original Constiutution, but my goodness what it has evolved into since is something truly remarkable.
Our constitutions are very different in important ways. My experience of talking with Americans is that our system makes absolutely no sense to you guys and someone probably has to grow up with it to understand exactly how and why it works. Although to be honest plenty of people who grew up here don't understand it either. Our constitution is also not written down in one place so there is no simple thing like a Wikipedia page that can explain it.
Yes, exactly correct. We don't elect leaders or parties but individual MPs. I do not have any ability to vote for Theresa May or Jeremy Corbyn but only for who will be my own local MP. Only the people of Maidenhead (her constituency) can vote directly for May. The party with a majority of MPs then forms a government and the leader of that party becomes the Prime Minister. The executive is appointed by the PM, but unlike in your system the executive is made up from the MPs. So our executive, including the PM, are also all MPs and sit in the House of Commons with the same voting rights as the rest of the MPs.
All of this means that once a government is formed, by definition it always has a majority in the House of Commons, and unless something remarkable happens it will be able to pass its full legislative programme. There is none of the negotiation between President and Congress that is required in your system.
Hence why manifestos are so important. They summarise the legislative programme that each party will introduce if it wins, and because manifesto promises are so important and have various constitutional protections the majority of them are likely to be implemented by the winners. So the manifesto becomes a market stall that is designed to attract voters and a contract with the voters to bind the party to that subsequent agenda. When we elect a government we are not left wondering what we will get (none of this 'will Trump build the wall?') we know what was in the manifesto and can hold them to it (and fear it if the wrong side wins!).
This is also why there are fundamental differences in the style of the manifestos. The weaker parties are putting out a range of glittery ideas designed to attract individual blocks of voters. Pork barrel politics really. However, any party with a serious chance of winning also has to allow for political reality. Their manifesto has to be properly budgeted, or else flexible enough that they can produce proper budgets at need without breaking promises. The serious party manifestos are also influenced by the peculiar constitutional position of the House of Lords. The Lords are not elected, so the government may not have a majority in the Lords. But by convention the Lords will not vote down any legislation that was in the manifesto. Hence a serious party has to put in the manifesto difficult things that will be unpopular but necessary, so that they have the constitutional protection of the manifesto to ensure they get through the Lords.
Individuals do still count, just not quite as much as in your system. The leader of the winning party will become Prime Minister, and the PM sets the entire tone of the government. So the individual character of the party leader is always an issue. But how people vote is a complex balancing act, depending on their own local candidates, their view of how the other parties will perform in their constituency, and who they want as the government overall. This complex mess provides something that is surprisingly stable most of the time and is capable of producing strong but flexible government. Oh and it also allows the British people to send the occasional strong message or to take the piss. Both of which are very necessary in a country like ours.