(I’m working on a post or two on the subject area of dangerous memes and what to do about them.)
I’m very interested in that, I think I need it. I just read this article about Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis, and I was like “what the hell is wrong with me, that I didn’t see at least some of those points myself?” It really scared me, and made me wonder what other nonsense I believe in, that I ought to have seen through right away...
It might be worth doing some analysis on the authoritative voice (the ability to sound right), and I speak as someone who’s been a CS Lewis, GK Chesterton, Heinlein, Rand, and Spider Robinson fan. At this point, I suspect it’s a pathology.
Dude. AN ASSERTION IS PROVEN BY SOUNDING GOOD. It’s a form of the Steve Jobs reality distortion superpower: come up with a viewpoint so compelling it will reshape people’s perception of the past as well as the present.
(I must note that I’m not actually advocating this.)
Argument by assertion amusement from my daughter: “I’m running around the kitchen, but I’m not being annoying by running around the kitchen.” An argument by assertion of rich depth, particularly from a three-year-old.
Nuh. Still in the Pile(tm) with yer talk, which I have watched the first 5 min of … I hate video so much.
Did you dislike your talk’s content or your presentation? So far it looks like something that should be turned into a series of blog posts, complete with diagrams.
Neither really, it’s the video itself I dislike. I’ve put the slides on Scribd, and I’m thinking of re-recording the soundtrack. Only trouble is, I’d have to watch the video first to remember what I said… and I hate video so much.
This was over a year ago but I see that you’re still around. I wanted to ask you more about this. How does Spider Robinson fit in with the others? I would also add Orwell, Kipling, and Christopher Hitchens. Maybe even Eliezer a bit.
A big part of it is that these authors talk about truth a lot and the harm of denying that it’s there, and rail against and strawman other groups for refusing to accept the truth or even that truth exists.
What do you mean by a pathology? You think there was something wrong with those authors? Are you talking about overconfidence?
Spider Robinson is very definite and explicit about how things ought to be. Unfortunately, he extends this to the idea that people who are worth knowing like good jazz, Irish coffee, and puns.
I meant that there may be a pathology at my end—being so fond of the authoritative voice that I could be a fan of writers with substantially incompatible ideas, and not exactly notice or care.
I suspect you may be reading his exaggerated enthusiasm for these things as a blanket statement about people who aren’t worth knowing. For instance, I might, in a burst of excitement, say that people who don’t like the song Waterfall aren’t worth talking to, but I wouldn’t mean it literally. It would be a figure of speech.
For instance, in one of the Callahan books he states (in the voice of the author, not as a character, IIRC) that if he had a large sum of money he’d buy everyone in the US a copy of “Running, Jumping, Standing Still” on CD because it would make the world so much better. I read this as hyperbole for how much he likes that CD, and I don’t take it literally.
I may be misremembering or have missed something in his writing, though.
As far as you liking the voice, I doubt it’s a pathology. I feel the same way you do and it’s not surprising to me that a lot of people would find that kind of objectivity and confidence appealing. It is a bias, if you confuse the pleasure of reading those writers with their actual ideas, but since I vehemently disagree with most of the above writers I’m not too worried about it. (Do you still read or like those writers?)
I recently started rereading Atlas Shrugged, and was having fun with it—no matter what else, Rand created a world where interesting things happen. It was also interesting because some things have changed. Her bad guy rich people were bad because they were slack—they weren’t interested in running their businesses, they had barely enough energy to get government favors. The modern type who’s energetically taking as much money as possible out of the business with the intent of going somewhere else is barely present.
I can’t stand Robinson any more. The tone of “we’re cooler than the mundanes” has revolted me to the point where even the milder earlier version gets on my nerves. It’s possible that I should give Stardance another chance some time. It’s also possible that the effects of Very Bad Dreams have faded. Robinson has a sadistic imagination.
Back when, I bought a copy of Running Jumping Standing Still when I happened to see it, and was annoyed to find that I liked it.
I reread “Magic, Inc.” recently, and liked it very much. I haven’t read much Lewis or Chesterton lately.
My concern about pathology is a suspicion that what I like is the comfort of being told what to think in a palatable way.
I obviously haven’t completely lost my taste for didactic fiction.
The modern type who’s energetically taking as much money as possible out of the business with the intent of going somewhere else is barely present.
Yeah, that’s one of the major criticisms of her book, that the poor honest robber-barons were being exploited by the mean old federal regulations, which has nothing to do with the real world.
I actually liked Anthem best of Rand’s books, since it didn’t pretend to take place in our world, but was set in a dystopian world instead.
You have to admit Rand can really write a page turner, even though her ideas are shit.
Heh, why were you annoyed that you liked Running Jumping Standing Still? You’re opposed to music recommendations from writers?
I haven’t read Stardance or Very Bad Dreams: what had the tone of being cooler than the mundanes, and what was the sadistic imagination? Why can’t you stand him? I’m really not familiar with the tone you’re talking about. The only tone that bothers me about SR is the whole “Let’s be hippies and work everything out and it’ll all be ok” thing. “Free Lunch” in particular. And his argument in one of the Callahan stories that his AGI character would have to be friendly because it wouldn’t have human fear or insecurity. And have you read his “Night of Power”?
My favorite Heinlein are any of his short stories, and the novels Methuselah’s Children, Time Enough for Love, To Sail Beyond the Sunset, The Cat Who Walked Through Walls, Number of the Beast, and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.
As far as Lewis, you have to get past the religious stuff obviously, but I loved The Great Divorce.
I’m guessing you might like Robert Sheckley, who has some of the same “telling you what to think” but it’s couched in extremely clever, biting satire. Sheer brilliance. He’s SF’s Mark Twain.
Yeah, that’s one of the major criticisms of her book, that the poor honest robber-barons were being exploited by the mean old federal regulations, which has nothing to do with the real world.
One of the things I find incredibly interesting about Rand and her followers is that Rand is rather good at capturing the spirit of the envious and the bureaucratic, but not very good at making likeable heroes. They tend to be the Steve Jobs sort- it’s nice that he exists somewhere far away from me and will sell me things, and he should be as unregulated as possible, but I’d rather not work for him or be his friend.
And so when I’ve gone to Objectivist meetings, most people there have the same hatreds and same resentments and feel them pretty strongly, but that seems to be the primary binding factor, rather than interest in rationality or personal kindness or shared goals. (I’m not counting everyone wanting to make a bunch of money for themselves as a shared goal.)
Rand looks like she’s talking about production, but her real interest is in envy. And I agree with her that it’s a terrible thing we shouldn’t reward.
I’ve always thought—even when I was fourteen and reading it for the first time—that Atlas Shrugged would have been a better book along every conceivable dimension if Dagny and Rearden had told Galt where to stuff it when they got the chance. Never mind what would have happened later. The guy had all the personality of a wind-up pocketwatch; more importantly, though, (allegedly) charismatic figures brandishing totalizing economic ideologies and apocalyptic predictions tend to get a lot of people killed, and Rand as a child of the Soviets should have known that. Bright engineers and executives that actually struggle and solve problems on-page and appear to feel empathy are a lot more fun to read about.
Of course, then it wouldn’t have been a Rand book. You wouldn’t be too far wrong if you said—of any of her books—that all the economic and political content was window dressing for her depiction of her ideal man, and not the other way around.
The only tone that bothers me about SR is the whole “Let’s be hippies and work everything out and it’ll all be ok” thing. “Free Lunch” in particular.
Are we both thinking of the book where vg gnxrf n qrhf rk znpuvan gb cerirag uhznavgl sebz qrfgeblvat vgfrys? Gur obbx va juvpu ng yrnfg bar punenpgre’f rkgencbyngrq ibyvgvba jbhyq cebonoyl qrfgebl uhznavgl, cnvashyyl?
Now the AI does seem absurd. I’m tempted to give SR a pass on that one because he had the characters talk about science fiction so much, they almost break the fourth wall to explain his motives. But the same author went on a rant elsewhere about the dangers of Star Trek science fantasy. His apparent exception for Callahan’s seems a little forced.
Are we both thinking of the book where vg gnxrf n qrhf rk znpuvan gb cerirag uhznavgl sebz qrfgeblvat vgfrys? Gur obbx va juvpu ng yrnfg bar punenpgre’f rkgencbyngrq ibyvgvba jbhyq cebonoyl qrfgebl uhznavgl, cnvashyyl?
When and which character? I’m not sure where you’re getting that.
Now the AI does seem absurd.
Well, it’s a pretty common error to think that with enough intelligence, an AI (or person) will be ethical and friendly. Eliezer himself made that mistake back in 2000 before he realized that intelligence is optimizing the world towards goals and those goals can be arbitrary. Spider was right that an AI would probably not have human emotions like greed or revenge, but he missed the idea that we’re made of atoms that the AI could use for something else.
I’d have to reread to have a strong opinion, but Sheckley at least has a lot about how thought works. Example: the short story about being stuck in a spaceship with a replicator which refuses to repeat itself. It’s a comic story (iirc, they need six copies of something to get the spaceship to work properly, and the only source of food is the recalcitrant replicator), but it’s got something to say about how categories work.
I distantly remember that… I don’t suppose you happen to recall the name of the story? If Sheckley has been teaching “how to think” then I really should read to find out how one of my favorite authors does it.
Night of Power was the alarm bell that made me realize Robinson was off the rails.
I’m not sure what the two of you mean by “Very Bad Dreams—” perhaps a misrecollection of “Very Bad Deaths?” If so, Very Bad Deaths is almost certainly the sadistic one.
I don’t know the book Very Bad Deaths. Why is it sadistic?
And I loved Night of Power. What made you think he was “off the rails”? It’s speculative fiction, remember. I don’t read him as actually supporting a racial war or saying one is likely.
Very Bad Deaths has a fair amount of torture-porn and also contains extended descriptions of the effects of an extraordinarily painful medical condition.
Night of Power made me realize Robinson was off the rails because his didactic tone and self-righteous presentation continued even when he was describing horrible and outrageous actions, cold-blooded murders on the parts of the protagonists, etc. Essentially, it was the book that made me stop trusting Robinson as an author, since it demonstrated his ability to justify (and even advocate for) ridiculous excesses, leading me to evaluate the rest of his work much more critically.
That makes me want to read Very Bad Deaths very much, which was probably not your intended effect.
his didactic tone and self-righteous presentation continued even when he was describing horrible and outrageous actions, cold-blooded murders on the parts of the protagonists, etc.
Are you sure you’re not making the mistake of confusing a character’s beliefs with the authors?
As far as the murders, have you ever seen an action movie?
it demonstrated his ability to justify (and even advocate for) ridiculous excesses
please give me more details on this. I take it you’re not a rational anarchist and don’t support Michael’s revolution? What ridiculous excesses?
I’m just very surprised that you think it’s didactic or self-righteous; I didn’t see it that way at all.
Just curious, have you read Heinlein’s “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress”? Night of Power is full of allusions to it and it may not make as much sense if you haven’t.
Robinson’s fiction has a sadistic streak (very bad things happening to the unattractive characters) that Heinlein’s doesn’t. One of the later Callahan’s novels has a plot turn which indicates that Robinson had some idea that this was problematic.
In any case, I hope you read some Robinson and let us know what you think.
That makes me want to read Very Bad Deaths very much, which was probably not your intended effect.
Oh no, I thought it was quite good, but it’s not really for the weak of stomach. One of the main characters is also basically Spider Robinson himself, so if that’s not your cup of tea I would suggest looking elsewhere—personally, though, I did find it quite entertaining.
Are you sure you’re not making the mistake of confusing a character’s beliefs with the authors?
No—in fact I’m nearly positive that I am making that mistake, but I find it comparatively hard to not make given Robinson’s general style. The whole thing just squicks me out.
I would also argue that, for much of Robinson’s work, the characters’ beliefs are those of the author (and indeed the characters themselves are essentially the author)-- though I don’t think Night of Power suffers from this.
Just curious, have you read Heinlein’s “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress”? Night of Power is full of allusions to it and it may not make as much sense if you haven’t.
Certainly I have. Robinson has always struck me as sort of a bargain-basement Heinlein.
I’m trying to understand exactly what squicks you, and I’m not doing a very good job… the Revolution in Night of Power was pretty peaceful as revolutions go.
Ok, but… wouldn’t the same objection apply to virtually any action/adventure movie or novel? Kick Ass, all the Die Hard movies, anything Tarantino, James Bond, Robert Ludlum’s Bourne Identity novels and movies, et cetera. They all have similar violent scenes.
I can’t think of any point in Die Hard where John McClane kills prisoners in cold blood (in fact, there are two times where he almost dies because he tries to arrest terrorists instead of just shooting them). And I do consider all such scenes objectionable—for instance, in Serenity, when Zny fubbgf gur fheivivat Nyyvnapr thl sebz gur fuvc gung qrfgeblrq Obbx’f frggyrzrag, or when gur Bcrengvir fnlf ur vf hanezrq, fb Zny whfg chyyf n tha naq fubbgf uvz, I had the same squicky reaction.
See, I liked that scene. Gur Bcrengvir jnf gelvat gb pngpu crbcyr haqre Zny’f cebgrpgvba fb gurl pbhyq or neerfgrq naq gbegherq be rkrphgrq. Ur jnf jvyyvat gb xvyy Zny naq rirelbar ryfr ur pnerq nobhg va beqre gb qb fb. Pngpuvat uvz bss thneq naq xvyyvat uvz jbhyq unir fnirq n ybg bs yvirf, rira vs vg jnfa’g va nal jnl snve. Squicky? Sure. Actually the wrong thing to do? Not so much.
I can’t think of any point in Die Hard where John McClane kills prisoners in cold blood (in fact, there are two times where he almost dies because he tries to arrest terrorists instead of just shooting them). And I do consider all such scenes objectionable
Which scenes are you saying are objectionable? The ones where MClane puts the lives of himself and all those he is trying to protect in danger by not shooting terrorists when he should have? Those squick me out. Utter negligence when so many lives are at stake.
McClane is probably too far in the other direction, but to be fair he’s a cop (so he has extra rules to abide by, not just normal morality) and he definitely doesn’t understand the magnitude of the situation at first.
Are you sure you’re not making the mistake of confusing a character’s beliefs with the authors?
As far as the murders, have you ever seen an action movie?
Have you ever read a novel and gotten an insistent background vibe from it that says “something isn’t quite right with the person who wrote this”? I got this pretty strong from John C. Wright’s The Golden Age trilogy, even though I started reading it knowing next to nothing about Wright.
This doesn’t seem very consistent though. Most people I’ve talked with seem to like The Golden Age a lot.
Hm, I’m a fan of Heinlein too, I guess I’d better not start reading those others. ;p
Any idea where I can look for clues about the ‘authoritative voice’?
I’m very interested in that, I think I need it. I just read this article about Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis, and I was like “what the hell is wrong with me, that I didn’t see at least some of those points myself?”
The strength of C. S. Lewis’s works seem to be that they were a whole lot less bad than the alternate sources of the same message.
The hard part with something like that not being how to question your ideas, but to notice that you have an idea that needs questioning. It’s like reading Michael Behe’s books on intelligent design and trying to understand the view inside his head, how a tenured biology professor could come up with such obvious-to-others defective arguments and fail to notice the low quality of his own thinking.
I’m very interested in that, I think I need it. I just read this article about Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis, and I was like “what the hell is wrong with me, that I didn’t see at least some of those points myself?” It really scared me, and made me wonder what other nonsense I believe in, that I ought to have seen through right away...
It might be worth doing some analysis on the authoritative voice (the ability to sound right), and I speak as someone who’s been a CS Lewis, GK Chesterton, Heinlein, Rand, and Spider Robinson fan. At this point, I suspect it’s a pathology.
Dude. AN ASSERTION IS PROVEN BY SOUNDING GOOD. It’s a form of the Steve Jobs reality distortion superpower: come up with a viewpoint so compelling it will reshape people’s perception of the past as well as the present.
(I must note that I’m not actually advocating this.)
Argument by assertion amusement from my daughter: “I’m running around the kitchen, but I’m not being annoying by running around the kitchen.” An argument by assertion of rich depth, particularly from a three-year-old.
Did you ever get around to reading either of the papers I linked you to there btw?
Nuh. Still in the Pile(tm) with yer talk, which I have watched the first 5 min of … I hate video so much.
Did you dislike your talk’s content or your presentation? So far it looks like something that should be turned into a series of blog posts, complete with diagrams.
Neither really, it’s the video itself I dislike. I’ve put the slides on Scribd, and I’m thinking of re-recording the soundtrack. Only trouble is, I’d have to watch the video first to remember what I said… and I hate video so much.
This was over a year ago but I see that you’re still around. I wanted to ask you more about this. How does Spider Robinson fit in with the others? I would also add Orwell, Kipling, and Christopher Hitchens. Maybe even Eliezer a bit.
A big part of it is that these authors talk about truth a lot and the harm of denying that it’s there, and rail against and strawman other groups for refusing to accept the truth or even that truth exists.
What do you mean by a pathology? You think there was something wrong with those authors? Are you talking about overconfidence?
Spider Robinson is very definite and explicit about how things ought to be. Unfortunately, he extends this to the idea that people who are worth knowing like good jazz, Irish coffee, and puns.
I meant that there may be a pathology at my end—being so fond of the authoritative voice that I could be a fan of writers with substantially incompatible ideas, and not exactly notice or care.
I suspect you may be reading his exaggerated enthusiasm for these things as a blanket statement about people who aren’t worth knowing. For instance, I might, in a burst of excitement, say that people who don’t like the song Waterfall aren’t worth talking to, but I wouldn’t mean it literally. It would be a figure of speech.
For instance, in one of the Callahan books he states (in the voice of the author, not as a character, IIRC) that if he had a large sum of money he’d buy everyone in the US a copy of “Running, Jumping, Standing Still” on CD because it would make the world so much better. I read this as hyperbole for how much he likes that CD, and I don’t take it literally.
I may be misremembering or have missed something in his writing, though.
As far as you liking the voice, I doubt it’s a pathology. I feel the same way you do and it’s not surprising to me that a lot of people would find that kind of objectivity and confidence appealing. It is a bias, if you confuse the pleasure of reading those writers with their actual ideas, but since I vehemently disagree with most of the above writers I’m not too worried about it. (Do you still read or like those writers?)
I recently started rereading Atlas Shrugged, and was having fun with it—no matter what else, Rand created a world where interesting things happen. It was also interesting because some things have changed. Her bad guy rich people were bad because they were slack—they weren’t interested in running their businesses, they had barely enough energy to get government favors. The modern type who’s energetically taking as much money as possible out of the business with the intent of going somewhere else is barely present.
I can’t stand Robinson any more. The tone of “we’re cooler than the mundanes” has revolted me to the point where even the milder earlier version gets on my nerves. It’s possible that I should give Stardance another chance some time. It’s also possible that the effects of Very Bad Dreams have faded. Robinson has a sadistic imagination.
Back when, I bought a copy of Running Jumping Standing Still when I happened to see it, and was annoyed to find that I liked it.
I reread “Magic, Inc.” recently, and liked it very much. I haven’t read much Lewis or Chesterton lately.
My concern about pathology is a suspicion that what I like is the comfort of being told what to think in a palatable way.
I obviously haven’t completely lost my taste for didactic fiction.
Second the confusion about this. I don’t see what changed in him unless you mean the author’s fictionalized daughter.
Yeah, that’s one of the major criticisms of her book, that the poor honest robber-barons were being exploited by the mean old federal regulations, which has nothing to do with the real world.
I actually liked Anthem best of Rand’s books, since it didn’t pretend to take place in our world, but was set in a dystopian world instead.
You have to admit Rand can really write a page turner, even though her ideas are shit.
Heh, why were you annoyed that you liked Running Jumping Standing Still? You’re opposed to music recommendations from writers?
I haven’t read Stardance or Very Bad Dreams: what had the tone of being cooler than the mundanes, and what was the sadistic imagination? Why can’t you stand him? I’m really not familiar with the tone you’re talking about. The only tone that bothers me about SR is the whole “Let’s be hippies and work everything out and it’ll all be ok” thing. “Free Lunch” in particular. And his argument in one of the Callahan stories that his AGI character would have to be friendly because it wouldn’t have human fear or insecurity. And have you read his “Night of Power”?
My favorite Heinlein are any of his short stories, and the novels Methuselah’s Children, Time Enough for Love, To Sail Beyond the Sunset, The Cat Who Walked Through Walls, Number of the Beast, and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.
As far as Lewis, you have to get past the religious stuff obviously, but I loved The Great Divorce.
I’m guessing you might like Robert Sheckley, who has some of the same “telling you what to think” but it’s couched in extremely clever, biting satire. Sheer brilliance. He’s SF’s Mark Twain.
One of the things I find incredibly interesting about Rand and her followers is that Rand is rather good at capturing the spirit of the envious and the bureaucratic, but not very good at making likeable heroes. They tend to be the Steve Jobs sort- it’s nice that he exists somewhere far away from me and will sell me things, and he should be as unregulated as possible, but I’d rather not work for him or be his friend.
And so when I’ve gone to Objectivist meetings, most people there have the same hatreds and same resentments and feel them pretty strongly, but that seems to be the primary binding factor, rather than interest in rationality or personal kindness or shared goals. (I’m not counting everyone wanting to make a bunch of money for themselves as a shared goal.)
Rand looks like she’s talking about production, but her real interest is in envy. And I agree with her that it’s a terrible thing we shouldn’t reward.
I’ve always thought—even when I was fourteen and reading it for the first time—that Atlas Shrugged would have been a better book along every conceivable dimension if Dagny and Rearden had told Galt where to stuff it when they got the chance. Never mind what would have happened later. The guy had all the personality of a wind-up pocketwatch; more importantly, though, (allegedly) charismatic figures brandishing totalizing economic ideologies and apocalyptic predictions tend to get a lot of people killed, and Rand as a child of the Soviets should have known that. Bright engineers and executives that actually struggle and solve problems on-page and appear to feel empathy are a lot more fun to read about.
Of course, then it wouldn’t have been a Rand book. You wouldn’t be too far wrong if you said—of any of her books—that all the economic and political content was window dressing for her depiction of her ideal man, and not the other way around.
Are we both thinking of the book where vg gnxrf n qrhf rk znpuvan gb cerirag uhznavgl sebz qrfgeblvat vgfrys? Gur obbx va juvpu ng yrnfg bar punenpgre’f rkgencbyngrq ibyvgvba jbhyq cebonoyl qrfgebl uhznavgl, cnvashyyl?
Now the AI does seem absurd. I’m tempted to give SR a pass on that one because he had the characters talk about science fiction so much, they almost break the fourth wall to explain his motives. But the same author went on a rant elsewhere about the dangers of Star Trek science fantasy. His apparent exception for Callahan’s seems a little forced.
When and which character? I’m not sure where you’re getting that.
Well, it’s a pretty common error to think that with enough intelligence, an AI (or person) will be ethical and friendly. Eliezer himself made that mistake back in 2000 before he realized that intelligence is optimizing the world towards goals and those goals can be arbitrary. Spider was right that an AI would probably not have human emotions like greed or revenge, but he missed the idea that we’re made of atoms that the AI could use for something else.
In the book you’re talking about, what do we learn in the big reveal? What happens immediately after the big reveal? Do we both mean this book?
Yes, that book. By big reveal, do you mean gung gur vagehqref ner gvzr geniryref? Please elaborate.
Jura Ubezng gur gvzr geniryre rkcynvaf uvf zbgvirf, ur rkcyvpvgyl fnlf gur uhzna enpr vf “qbbzrq” va uvf gvzr. Gurl pna’g ercebqhpr cebcreyl, naq gurl qba’g frrz gb unir nal cebfcrpgf sbe vzzbegnyvgl. Gurl ubcr gvzr geniry jbexf va rknpgyl gur evtug jnl gb yrg gurz punatr uvfgbel sbe gur orggre, orpnhfr jung qb gurl unir gb ybfr? V pnyyrq guvf n qrhf rk znpuvan (nffhzvat vg jbexf).
Nsgre Ubezng rkcynvaf rirelguvat, gur onq thl’f Qentba be ungpurg-zna erirnyf gung ur urneq vg nf jryy naq cynaf gb xvyy gurz. Ur frrzf snveyl vagryyvtrag, pregnvayl fznegre guna uvf rzcyblre. Ohg ur oryvrirf ur cersref n jbeyq jurer ur trgf gb xrrc gur wbo ur ybirf, naq yngre nyy uhznaf qvr.
I’ll get the refrigerator.
Hmm?
There was this post on LessWrong about thinking an AI could be prevented from being angry by cooling it down using a freezer.
I can’t seem to find it now though.
Heh, I like to joke about giving my computer cocaine to make it run faster.
I love Sheckley—but when does he tell you what to think? I read him when I was young, so maybe I didn’t notice...?
I’d have to reread to have a strong opinion, but Sheckley at least has a lot about how thought works. Example: the short story about being stuck in a spaceship with a replicator which refuses to repeat itself. It’s a comic story (iirc, they need six copies of something to get the spaceship to work properly, and the only source of food is the recalcitrant replicator), but it’s got something to say about how categories work.
I distantly remember that… I don’t suppose you happen to recall the name of the story? If Sheckley has been teaching “how to think” then I really should read to find out how one of my favorite authors does it.
I’m heading out for the weekend, but if there isn’t a definitive answer by the time I’m back, I’ll look into it.
There’s also a very cool story about a man who tries to get computerized therapy, but the program is optimized for treating aliens.
I want to say it’s The Necessary Thing.
Night of Power was the alarm bell that made me realize Robinson was off the rails.
I’m not sure what the two of you mean by “Very Bad Dreams—” perhaps a misrecollection of “Very Bad Deaths?” If so, Very Bad Deaths is almost certainly the sadistic one.
I don’t know the book Very Bad Deaths. Why is it sadistic?
And I loved Night of Power. What made you think he was “off the rails”? It’s speculative fiction, remember. I don’t read him as actually supporting a racial war or saying one is likely.
Very Bad Deaths has a fair amount of torture-porn and also contains extended descriptions of the effects of an extraordinarily painful medical condition.
Night of Power made me realize Robinson was off the rails because his didactic tone and self-righteous presentation continued even when he was describing horrible and outrageous actions, cold-blooded murders on the parts of the protagonists, etc. Essentially, it was the book that made me stop trusting Robinson as an author, since it demonstrated his ability to justify (and even advocate for) ridiculous excesses, leading me to evaluate the rest of his work much more critically.
That makes me want to read Very Bad Deaths very much, which was probably not your intended effect.
Are you sure you’re not making the mistake of confusing a character’s beliefs with the authors?
As far as the murders, have you ever seen an action movie?
please give me more details on this. I take it you’re not a rational anarchist and don’t support Michael’s revolution? What ridiculous excesses?
I’m just very surprised that you think it’s didactic or self-righteous; I didn’t see it that way at all.
Just curious, have you read Heinlein’s “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress”? Night of Power is full of allusions to it and it may not make as much sense if you haven’t.
Robinson’s fiction has a sadistic streak (very bad things happening to the unattractive characters) that Heinlein’s doesn’t. One of the later Callahan’s novels has a plot turn which indicates that Robinson had some idea that this was problematic.
In any case, I hope you read some Robinson and let us know what you think.
I love what I have read. I’ve only read a few of his novels though. Which one has that plot turn and what’s the plot turn?
It was a Callahan’s novel which came out in the past ten years or so. It might have been Callahan’s Key.
Wnxr, gur ivrjcbvag punenpgre, chavfurf na vashevngvat naq culfvpnyyl htyl punenpgre engure frireryl (snvag zrzbel fhttrfgf yvgrenyyl qhzcvat fuvg ba ure). Xnezn rafhrf.
I’m really sorry, but I don’t remember the details.
Thanks… I’m still going through the most recent Callahan novels. Jake Stonebender does kinda have a temper.
I checked with a friend who’s a Robinson fan. It was Callahan’s Key, and it was n yvgre bs hevar.
Oh no, I thought it was quite good, but it’s not really for the weak of stomach. One of the main characters is also basically Spider Robinson himself, so if that’s not your cup of tea I would suggest looking elsewhere—personally, though, I did find it quite entertaining.
No—in fact I’m nearly positive that I am making that mistake, but I find it comparatively hard to not make given Robinson’s general style. The whole thing just squicks me out.
I would also argue that, for much of Robinson’s work, the characters’ beliefs are those of the author (and indeed the characters themselves are essentially the author)-- though I don’t think Night of Power suffers from this.
Certainly I have. Robinson has always struck me as sort of a bargain-basement Heinlein.
I’m trying to understand exactly what squicks you, and I’m not doing a very good job… the Revolution in Night of Power was pretty peaceful as revolutions go.
Gur cneg jurer gur znva punenpgref zheqre n pncgvir (be pncgvirf? Vg’f orra n juvyr) ol fcenlvat tyhr vagb gurve abfr/zbhgu naq pnhfvat gurz gb nfculkvngr vf n tbbq rknzcyr bs jung V sbhaq fdhvpxl nobhg gung obbx.
Jura gurl’er nobhg gb encr Wraavsre? Ur qrfreirf gung naq vg’f frys-qrsrafr
Ertneqyrff bs jurgure fbzrbar “qrfreirf vg,” zheqrevat pncgvirf va tehrfbzr naq rkpehpvngvat znaaref vf orlbaq gur cnyr. Gung’f nyfb abg frys-qrsrafr ol nal fgnaqneq gung V xabj bs, fvapr gur crefba va dhrfgvba jnf nyernql haqre gurve pbageby.
Ok, but… wouldn’t the same objection apply to virtually any action/adventure movie or novel? Kick Ass, all the Die Hard movies, anything Tarantino, James Bond, Robert Ludlum’s Bourne Identity novels and movies, et cetera. They all have similar violent scenes.
I can’t think of any point in Die Hard where John McClane kills prisoners in cold blood (in fact, there are two times where he almost dies because he tries to arrest terrorists instead of just shooting them). And I do consider all such scenes objectionable—for instance, in Serenity, when Zny fubbgf gur fheivivat Nyyvnapr thl sebz gur fuvc gung qrfgeblrq Obbx’f frggyrzrag, or when gur Bcrengvir fnlf ur vf hanezrq, fb Zny whfg chyyf n tha naq fubbgf uvz, I had the same squicky reaction.
See, I liked that scene. Gur Bcrengvir jnf gelvat gb pngpu crbcyr haqre Zny’f cebgrpgvba fb gurl pbhyq or neerfgrq naq gbegherq be rkrphgrq. Ur jnf jvyyvat gb xvyy Zny naq rirelbar ryfr ur pnerq nobhg va beqre gb qb fb. Pngpuvat uvz bss thneq naq xvyyvat uvz jbhyq unir fnirq n ybg bs yvirf, rira vs vg jnfa’g va nal jnl snve. Squicky? Sure. Actually the wrong thing to do? Not so much.
Which scenes are you saying are objectionable? The ones where MClane puts the lives of himself and all those he is trying to protect in danger by not shooting terrorists when he should have? Those squick me out. Utter negligence when so many lives are at stake.
McClane is probably too far in the other direction, but to be fair he’s a cop (so he has extra rules to abide by, not just normal morality) and he definitely doesn’t understand the magnitude of the situation at first.
Have you ever read a novel and gotten an insistent background vibe from it that says “something isn’t quite right with the person who wrote this”? I got this pretty strong from John C. Wright’s The Golden Age trilogy, even though I started reading it knowing next to nothing about Wright.
This doesn’t seem very consistent though. Most people I’ve talked with seem to like The Golden Age a lot.
I get this a lot from A Song of Ice and Fire.
Yes, Very Bad Deaths.
Hm, I’m a fan of Heinlein too, I guess I’d better not start reading those others. ;p Any idea where I can look for clues about the ‘authoritative voice’?
That’s odd. I’ve been a fan of Heinlein and Spider Robinson but never Rand or Lewis. Haven’t tried Chesterton.
You’re actually the reason I started reading Spider Robinson.
The strength of C. S. Lewis’s works seem to be that they were a whole lot less bad than the alternate sources of the same message.
The hard part with something like that not being how to question your ideas, but to notice that you have an idea that needs questioning. It’s like reading Michael Behe’s books on intelligent design and trying to understand the view inside his head, how a tenured biology professor could come up with such obvious-to-others defective arguments and fail to notice the low quality of his own thinking.