After my previous post about the way the New York that existed for generations is now being erased by easy money, Paul Krugman has some thoughts about the dynamics of how wealth changes neighborhoods in unpredictable, not just undesirable, ways:
... when it comes to things that make urban life better or worse, there is absolutely no reason to have faith in the invisible hand of the market. ... When, say, a bank branch takes over the space formerly occupied by a beloved neighborhood shop, everyone may be maximizing returns, yet the disappearance of that shop may lead to a decline in foot traffic, contribute to the exodus of a few families and their replacement by young bankers who are never home, and so on in a way that reduces the whole neighborhood’s attractiveness.
... we’re now arguably looking at something new, as the really wealthy — domestic malefactors of great wealth, but also oligarchs, princelings, and sheiks — buy up prime real estate and leave it vacant, creating luxury-shopping wastelands at best (I know, snobbish Upper West Side bias), expensive ghost districts at worst.
The whole point of a city, if you ask me is to have a place where cosmopolitanism is a way of life. It's hard to have that when the only flavor of polis around is the super-rich.
When I was growing up in the '70s and '80s (and to some extent into the '90s), one of the things I found myself explaining over and over again to people who didn't live in or near NYC was how it was just a place. People lived there; it wasn't some alien moonscape. Then people who would never have lived there in a million years to begin with started turning it into a gated community — and not even because they wanted to live there, but simply to own a piece thereof.
Advertising does not make content free. It merely externalizes the costs in a way that incentivizes malicious or incompetent players to build things like Superfish, infect 1 in 20 machines with ad injection malware, and create sites that require unsafe plugins and take twice as many resources to load, quite expensive in terms of bandwidth, power, and stability. It will take a major force to disrupt this ecosystem and motivate alternative revenue models. I hope that Mozilla can be that force.
Emphasis mine. I think this talk of externalizing costs is something that's surfacing a good deal more than it used to — or at the very least, I'm getting exposed to it more often, thanks to reading up more on things like discussions of economic theory and practice.Read more
The other day I finally put into words the marrow — not just the skin or the meat — of what most of my objections to stuff like the Marvel movies are, or any other pop-culture trend that offers so much and yet gives so little. It's not that these things aren't entertaining (although my own mileage varies drastically with them in that respect). It's that they are lousy models to follow for other creators.Read more
It is one of my most strongly held critical beliefs that you should not write about films you don’t like. First, it is bad for the soul to exult in pointing out the deficiencies of the film in question. Second, if you have ever had the luck to produce a film yourself, you are aware that any film that makes it to a public screen is a small miracle of energy and determination, and it is simply unkind to say that the miracle was a complete waste of time. Finally, and on a more prudential note, people mind about bad reviews, so it is a very quick way of making a lot of enemies.
I disagree on almost every single point made here:Read more
The mega-novel is a pinnacle of the storyteller’s craft. When a writer appears who can really create one, it will always be a major event. Gwynne’s six-figure deal is a sign publishers are ready to invest in big stories, but there’s more to reading than bingeing on epics. If the fantasy genre, and fiction more widely, wants to remain healthy, it needs to nurture all kinds of stories. There are great fantasy short stories, novellas and single novels that deserve much wider audiences, but are sidelined by the industry’s unhealthy fixation with the serial format. It’s time for the fantasy genre to tell some new – shorter – stories.
I don't know that I even agree that "the mega-novel is a pinnacle of the storyteller’s craft", for the simple reason that not all longer stories are better ones. Length is not depth or profundity, nor does it even make for more absorbing storytelling. The mere 200 or so pages of Yasushi Inoue's Tun-huang are some of the most spellbinding I've ever read, even if the language is dry by today's pumped-up, overblown standards.
Longer cycles of novels are not a storytelling innovation but a publishing innovation. The industry has such thin margins as it is, they have to do something to keep people coming back, so why not make one novel do the work of five? It's a tactic akin to what ice cream makers used to do, when they pumped air into their product to double its volume, and thus turning one gallon into two. Not that the ice cream tasted any better, of course.
One of the other side effects of this mad quest for ten books where one would do fine is that it does damage to the author. Instead of doing ten different things, and maybe expanding their range or their insights, they're forced to do slight variations on the same thing. Maybe this tactic is justified when there's just so much else to do in this world other than read a book — after all, if you hit on one really intriguing thing, why not milk it for all it's worth? It's always easier to market something that has some degree of existing mindshare than to market something entirely new — although I see that more as a failure of marketing than a failure of the audience.
"...part of me looks at society as it is now and thinks we’ve been infantilised by our own taste. We’re essentially all consuming very childish things – comic books, superheroes… Adults are watching this stuff, and taking it seriously!"
Goodness, imagine that. People consuming works of the imagination, and having the nerve to take them seriously.
I leave myself open to the possibility that Brother Simon was grossly misquoted — note that ellipsis — or that the emphasis on his words was shifted to make it sound like he was condemning something he wasn't. But really, this is about as awful a piece of journalism as it gets. [Addendum: Pegg supplies more context on his own.]
Putting that aside, the idea that SF/fantasy/comics are infantalizing forces is beyond dumb. Why do they get singled out, and not stuff like Pitch Perfect 2 or Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2, arguably many orders of magnitude worse in such a vein? Because they come from that well of goodies we have tarred with the brush of being "kid's stuff", and because we reserve a peculiar sort of horror for socially retrograde behaviors that's out of proportion with their actual impact.
If anyone is likely to talk about infantilization around here, come to think of it, it's me, but I don't think comic books/SF/ponies are the culprits here. That they have manifest popularity is a symptom, not always of bad things. I grouse about how the recent wave of popular stuff is not the greatest creative role model, but I know better than to think it's a symptom of total societal decay or something. For that I would sooner look to the loathsome and violent behavior of mobs at sporting events or fraternities, which don't earn a fraction as much of the hand-wringing, pearl-clutching flabbergast as people dressing up as Tony Stark or Black Widow (or, for that matter, Inuyasha). And again, why? And again, because the former is allegedly "normal", and the latter not, and better the devil we know than the devil we don't know.
Something I forgot to comment on when the news broke was word about the new Ultra HD Blu-ray Disc spec, the 4K disc format that is ostensibly going to be to Blu-ray Disc what BD was to DVD. It's such a strange piece of news, because there are a few things in the spec that I genuinely like — higher color depth, for instance — but for the most part I can't see this as being anything but another shot by the studios across the bow of the streaming services, and a waste of everyone's time and money.Read more
Traveling and work this past week, so not much time to blog. A few things stand out:
... the eruption of top incomes that began around 40 years ago need not have solid causes — it could be a case of contagious norms-breaking. This might also explain why movements of top incomes are so different in different countries, with the most obvious determinant being whether you speak English; think of it as an epidemic of broken windows in the United States, which spreads to countries that are culturally close to America but not so much elsewhere.
Emphasis mine. I like that term — "contagious norms-breaking", something epitomized in a Japanese proverb I heard once that goes something like, "If everyone crosses against the light at once, it's okay."
I see behaviors like this everywhere, not just in the actions of the super-rich or super-privileged, so I'm fairly sure it is a major component of human nature. This explains why things like music piracy became so widespread and entrenched, and hard to argue people out of. Why not do it, when everyone else was doing it, and when most of the counter-arguments didn't really amount to anything? Few people respond to moralizing arguments unless they come from someone in authority or from a trusted peer; when they come from some anonymous other, they have no weight.
Now we're reaching a point where free- or low-cost digital music solutions are ubiquitous, and where it's becoming harder to justify piracy because there's far less of a reason to bother. Even there, though, I don't expect piracy to really start dying off for at least another generation or so — not until everyone who bothered with it is offered a workable solution that's at least as convenient as piracy itself, and the behaviors of the whole provide a sense of universal reinforcement.
On and off I've mentioned a project codenamed "MeTal" (real name TBA*), the replacement I'm brewing for Movable Type for use here and elsewhere. The goal was, and is, to create a blogging/CMS system with the following requirements (listed here in no particular order):
According to my personal Git archive, the first formal commit for the project was on February 11th. Since then, I've managed to build a little more than half of the actual features listed above, as opposed to just fulfillment of general requirements. Most of the pace of the project is dictated by the fact that I'm doing it in between and on top of other things, but my goal is to have something I can give to people to use, not just beta-test under controlled conditions, by the end of the year.
Those who use a software package to do blogging, as opposed to a service, are opting for WordPress almost inevitably, and I don't blame them — it's a great program with tons of third-party support, loads of gorgeous and flexible themes, etc. But there are many design decisions that I can't get behind — the near-total lack of static publishing support, for instance. The more I see how WordPress's development is guided, the less I want to try and build anything with it or on top of it — and the more motivated I am to build something of my own that stands in contrast to it.
I don't try to think too much about how I should have started this project three or four years ago, back when something of this kind might have had more of a chance of getting some uptake. I doubt anyone beyond me and maybe a tiny cadre of people will ever use it; the ones really serious about doing their own thing with blogging are already settled with products like Nikola. Part of me regrets not taking an existing solution and attempting to build on top of it, but I've always felt uncomfortable doing that for reasons I can't properly put into words; I wanted something where I could build as many of the things I wanted into it as close to the core as possible. Granted, I used someone else's ORM and someone else's Web framework (Peewee and Bottle, respectively), but the rest of it was going to be my thing one way or another.
I know I'm stubborn, and possibly foolish; it's something I've seen manifest in many different respects. Rather than struggle with the odds of trying to sell some publisher on my books, I elected to put them out there on my own, knowing full well it would mean minimal exposure and no way to benefit from the publicity machines that publishers have at their beck and call. Likewise, building a solution like this from scratch would mean I could not count on someone else to bail me out if it failed (although, in theory, if I find the whole thing completely untenable, I could always export to WordPress and be done with it). But somehow, there's a satisfaction I get in knowing I've chosen my own path that I don't get from any other place.
* little Steins;Gate joke for you there
Forgive the radio silence on this end; there's about to be a good deal more of it. I spent the last few days being sick (I'm still on the mend), and I'll be spending the next week and change dealing with family matters and work. Between then and now, some news:
Anyway, look for me again in a couple of weeks. I hope by that time my eyeballs will have stopped itching.
No, I haven't forgotten about Welcome to the Fold — and neither should you, for that matter, because the wheels have begun turning on that project again! An editor (that is, a copy editor) has the book in hand and will be giving me some detailed edits. After that comes the real fun: the hunt for a publisher or an agent.Read more
The easy, and wrong, way to talk about Under the Skin is through analogy and metaphor: it’s The (Wo)Man Who Fell To Earth by way of David Lynch, or something like that. I resist this approach, because it reduces any discussion of the movie to outside references, and threatens to do a disservice to what the experience of watching the film is actually like. Talk about something only through the lens of something else and you end up not talking about the thing itself at all. The thing itself works very hard to not be pigeonholed, not merely in the sense of “is it SF or not?” but “what is it, really?”
Even a simple description of what happens in Under the Skin is likely to disappoint. After a sound-and-light show that implies birth or creation or both, we meet two people, sort of. One is a man who rides a motorcycle and rescues what appears to be the dead body of a prostitute from the bank of a river. The other is a woman (Scarlett Johannson), who strips off the dead woman’s clothes and dons them herself. This, the movie implies, is not the only disguise she wears.Read more