Obsidian Wings

The Coming Trump-Cruz GOP Ticket - Open Thread

by Ugh

It seems Scott Walker is an incredibly bad candidate and all foam/no beer to boot.  We have Trump running circles around him and the rest of the, uh, distinguished gentlemen (and Ms. Fiorina) with nothing more than his hair and "BLARGH! I STRONG!" as a campaign.  Jeebus.

So, despite my earlier thought that Walker would win the GOP nomination, it seems we'll have the Donald,* who I predict will pick Cruz as his running mate as a kind of "let's piss off the liberals" selection.  

Anyway, talk about this, or the MTV VMAs (who are all those people?), or US Open Tennis, or the coming football season (professional or college), Mount Denali, the new school year, or whatever.  

*But it's still only August 2015 you say - too bad, bring me The Donald!

Your Hugo Awards Thread, plus My Opinions (which are mine) on the Hugo Art Awards Problem

by Doctor Science

The Hugo Awards Ceremony is just starting. There's a livestream here, they tell me -- I have Flash disabled, so I can't see it. I'm following Mur Lafferty's twitter, Sasquan's twitter, and the thread at File 770. The ceremony is on Pacific Time and I am on Eastern, so I am pretty much certain to be asleep long before we get to Best Novel.

This year's Hugo Awards base, designed by Matthew Dockrey.

I'll put this much up right now, then edit to add what I have to say about the Art awards.

---

The Hugo Art Awards, for "Pro Artist" and "Fan Artist", are stuck in the Century of the Fruitbat; it's really time to think about how they should work in the Century of the Anchovy.

In the first place, the names aren't accurate: they're not actually for two different types of *artist*. The rules state:

Best Professional Artist. An illustrator whose work has appeared in a professional publication in the field of science fiction or fantasy during the previous calendar year.

Best Fan Artist. An artist or cartoonist whose work has appeared through
publication in semiprozines or fanzines or through other public display during the previous calendar year.

The Hugo Awards site states, of "Fan Artist":

Material for semiprozines or material on public displays (such as in convention art shows) is also eligible. Fan artists can have work published in professional publications as well. You should not consider such professionally-published works when judging this award.

In other words, a single artist could be nominated for both "Fan Artist" and "Pro Artist", which doesn't make sense if the words "fan" and "pro" describe the person.

The rules actually distinguish different types of *distribution*, not different types of *people*.

"Pro" art is accessible to anyone who pays the distributor, usually a magazine or book publisher. It is out in the public world, anyone can find it. Traditionally, this art is of high technical quality, professional in every sense.

"Fan" art may be sold -- as works in art shows often are -- but it's only really accessible to people inside sf/f fandom. You have to be an insider, on some level, to find (or hear about) fanzines, or to go to conventions where art shows take place. Traditionally, this art is frequently humorous or black-and-white only, reflecting the fact that the artists and distributors don't spend much money on it.

But that division is so 20th century. How do you categorize artwork that is not (directly) paid for, but which is distributed very widely, accessible to anyone in the world? Art on web pages, on deviantart, on tumblr?

At present, art on non-pro websites is all categorized as "fan art", whether the artist is a pro or not. If you look over the list of winners and nominees, you can see that a revolution took place in about 2013.

Before then, there weren't all that many new names from year to year, and an artist's first win usually happened after several appearances on the nominees list.

As I predicted, Elizabeth Leggett won for Fan Artist. I will also predict that she was not in first place for nominations.

This is the third year in a row when someone won the Fan Artist award in their (her) first time on the ballot. In 2013 and 2014, the "dark horses" were fifth and third among the nominees, respectively.

I think what's going on is a seismic shift in how sf/f art is distributed. Galen Dara, Sarah Webb, and now Leggett are professional-quality artists who have a significant amount of work online, but outside of the (few) pro sites. Internet distribution isn't mentioned in the Hugo rules, so their work counts as "fan art" for Hugo purposes -- but they are clearly leaps and bounds ahead of the amateur fan artists who are the usual suspects.

In between house renovations, I was dithering all summer about whether the Art categories need to be re-furbished or re-written. I'm now thinking that we shouldn't, I'll just encourage net-based fandom to nominate more artists from deviantart, tumblr, etc., in "Fan Artist". I anticipate that category will end up being broader than "Pro Artist", because it can include artists from all over the world, who might not have access to professional sf/f publishing, but who can nonetheless distribute their work globally.

I don't know that there will be any place or award for the traditional amateur fanartists, who really aren't going to be able to compete against the best of the world on the Web. But hey, that's the future for you.

Gene Engineering Open Thread

by wj

OK, we need a new open thread. I get that. So here ya go.

Once upon a time, I read a science fiction story which featured a group called "Control Normals". (No, I don't recall who the author was or what the title was. Perhaps one of the SF fans here will remember.)

The time was a future where genetic engineering was readily available, and widely used. But to keep an eye on what the results had been, and to keep open to new random mutations, the best scientific tradition had been observed by the creation of a control group -- one which did not get all those deliberate improvements. To convince people to agree initially to be part of that group, and later to compensate its members for their handicaps, they got a government subsidy.

At the time, this seemed rather off the wall. I mean, assume that that level of gene engineering would be available -- at some distant time in the future. Why would anyone, even for money, agree to not do the best for their kids that they could? It just seemed ludicrous. (I was, obviously, very young.)

Now, it seems wildly improbable for other reasons. First, getting (and keeping) a government subsidy seems like a stretch. And second, more importantly, why would we need a government subsidy to get people to sign on? We already have people refusing to get their kids vaccinated. Why would someone like that, especially if they are also hysterical about GMOs. need a bribe to opt out of improving their kids? No matter how obvious the advantages.

Why Do Bad Things Happen? -- Open Thread

by wj

Last night we had the traditional annual family gathering to celebrate the birthdays of all of us born in late July and early August. (Which amounts to nearly half of us.) As always, the conversation ranged far and wide. But at one point, someone mentioned a colleague who is a conspiracy theory enthusiast.

Everyone rolled their eyes, of course. But we discovered that we all know quite a few of these -- many of them otherwise sensible people. So the question arose, why are there so many conspiracy nuts these days? In answer, a theory was born:

There are some people whose psychological make-up requires not only an answer but agency in answer to the question Why Do Bad Things Happen? Random universe (i.e. "shit happens")? Not an acceptable answer. Human error? Also not acceptable. When something bad happens, it must have been caused to happen. So, who did it?

Most of the people that we know personally are good people. They may do irritating things occasionally. And they may have nutty ideas. But still, deep at heart, good people. So if their ideas are wrong-headed, it's just that they are misguided, not bad people. Note that word: midguided. So, who guided them wrong?

Once upon a time, religion provided an answer. Polytheistic religions generally have evil gods as well as good gods. Or, at least, a trickster god who does bad things (e.g. Loki). Christianity doesn't have provision for bad gods, but it does have the Devil to full the function. (Islam, as I understand it, has similar fallen angels.) If something bad happens, or if people are misguided, the Devil did it.

So, when bad things happened, the answer was already in hand. But today, things have changed. Fewer people are religious (yes, even it the US). And those who are now can communicate with others of similar mind. Once, if you didn't believe, you kept it to yourself, because all of your friends and neighbor did believe. But now, you can find others to talk to about what you all do believe instead.

However, the urge to answer the question remains. So, if it wasn't an evil supernatural power causing bad things to happen, who did it? Nobody is standing up and admitting to it, so they must be keeping it a secret. And, since there is a lot of it going around, it can't just be a single individual -- it must be a group. And working together. In short, a secret conspiracy.

If bad things happen, some nasty conspiracy made it happen. (Motives flexible.) If people are misguided, some nasty conspiracy deliberately controlled the information available to them, in order to mislead them. Etc., etc., etc.

Note that this is not incompatible with a religious belief. Even belief in a religion which already has an evil supernatural power. Nope, that evil power is merely the inspiration for the evil conspiracy that the people (even non-religious people) you know are talking about.

Conspiracy theories do not just fulfill what used to be essentially a religious function when it comes to explaining events. They also have one other religious feature: people seem to not only believe in conspiracies, but to have a compulsion to tell the rest of us about them. In short, they proselytize. (And not just door-to-door, unfortunately.)

So, the conspiracy nuts in our lives explained. Now all we need is to come up with a way to convince them that we are not interested in adopting their religion. Any suggestions?

Kurdistan and Somaliland

by wj

What do these two "countries" have in common? Officially, they don't exist. In reality, of course, both control substantial swaths of territory (which used to be part of another country, which is collapsed or collapsing), are relatively well governed democracies, and have economies in far better shape than that of the country that they are officially part of. (In Somalia's case, it is hard to argue convincingly that it even has a government, or a national economy, or a national anything else.) In short, they are countries for all practical purposes.

The obvious question is, why does this kind of determined blindness to reality happen?

The first factor is the tendency, in the 20th century, for European governments to turn territories which they were governing (colonies, trust territories, etc.) into countries -- without regard for the opinions of people involved. Some, notably India, were allowed to break into more sensible parts. But others are still being, officially, held together.

The second factor is, I think, the allergy that was acquired in the 20th century to "liberation movements". Both East and West felt (often with reason) that the other was fomenting independence movements in countries which were allies of theirs. As a result, it's like the borders of (roughly) 1960 have been decreed to be eternal henceforth. And anyone trying to change them will be ignored (if they are lucky) or smashed (if they are not).

Put that way, it sounds particularly stupid. But in practice that is what has happened. It is possible that the Kurds will manage to break the pattern. But whether that will lead to more sensible practices elsewhere is doubtful. Bangladesh, after all, did not. And the break-up of the USSR seems to have only reinforced the pattern.

The case of Somaliland seems particularly ridiculous. It's not like it is engaged in fighting off a national government, after all -- there is no national government. The folks there simply set up a government when the national government collapsed . . . quarter of a century ago. Seems like a long time to persist in ignoring reality.

how's this gonna turn out...?

by russell

saw this on NPR initially, now it's at Field and Stream of all places.

I'm actually really curious to see how this shakes out, legally.

For the record, I don't really have a problem with people blasting camera-bearing drones out of the sky if they are hovering over their property.  A 2nd Amendment solution to privacy invasion, I call it.

Don't want to get shot down, stay out of range.

But, IANAL.

Curious to know what you all make of it.

GOP Debate: Dumpster fire or Performance Art? Open Thread

by Ugh

And so it begins.  Predictions?  Thoughts?  Winners/losers?  Will Donald's hairpiece walk off the stage?  Who will make the most outrageous statement?  Who helped most/least?

My prediction:  Mr. Trump "wins" hands down.  Jeb Bush's popularity goes down.  Scott Walker will say the most insane thing and his popularity will soar because of it.

Anyway, enjoy the show!  Open Thread.

But we couldn't possibly prosecute anyone

by Ugh

Because, gosh, there just isn't any evidence.  We're looking forward, not back.  

Ex-CIA boss admits to BBC Panorama that it tortured

The CIA tortured terror suspects in its programme of "enhanced interrogation", the agency's former executive director, Buzzy Krongard, has admitted to the BBC's Panorama programme.

...

I asked Buzzy Krongard, the CIA's former executive director, if he thought waterboarding and painful stress positions were torture:

"Well, let's put it this way, it is meant to make him as uncomfortable as possible. So I assume for, without getting into semantics, that's torture. I'm comfortable with saying that," he explained.

Bygones! 

Also, a familiar voice quoted here.

Breaking Bad and Smallville: Tragedy as a TV genre

by Doctor Science

I never saw Breaking Bad -- it's really not my kind of thing, too morally dark and too realistic (no dragons, no spaceships) -- but I could hardly avoid being aware of it. This was especially the case as it built to the finale in September 2013.

The reaction to the "Breaking Bad" finale on my social media sites (Tumblr, Livejournal/Dreamwidth, Facebook), both while it was airing and immediately afterward, was: "I'm weeping for the characters. What a great, satisfying ending." As I saw viewers' reactions, it was clear to me: "Breaking Bad" is tragedy in the classical sense. It depicts a person of noble character (in Walter White's case, a man of intelligence and talent) overthrown by fate and their own flaws, evoking emotions of pity and terror, and leading the audience to a feeling of catharsis.

No wonder "Breaking Bad" is held in such high critical esteem: tragedy is still the most prestigious of genres, in Western drama, and the tragic sequence of emotions is still our standard for Most Important Art.

Mrs Siddons as the Tragic Muse, with Pity (holding a cup) and Terror (holding a knife) to either side. Image from Wikipedia.