2010-05-11

calimac: (puzzle)
2010-05-11 09:32 am

quasigrecian thoughts

1. The British post-election turmoil continues to be the best political show that country has staged since the implosion of Margaret Thatcher nearly twenty years ago. The hilarious part is that indecisive results like this are the norm in most European countries; only the British have absolutely no idea what to do with one. People who are enjoying pointing at other parties and saying "You lost!" don't seem to realize that nobody else won either. A coalition - either explicit or implicit - of losers is the only thing on offer.

2. At risk of becoming a victim myself, I must express dismay at the gangs of rampaging fan-fiction-writing thugs who are running around beating up on innocent authors who have the temerity to object to other people's stories using their characters and their settings. A description of one sober, principled objection as "panic" is typical. Another bruised victim deleted her posts on the topic only to have an opponent promptly make them reappear from cached copies, nicely demonstrating the monstrous sense of entitlement over other people's words that's under consideration.

2a. There's a lot of logical fallacies from the fan-fiction defense side, too, largely consisting of conflating inspiration and appropriation, or transformation and appropriation, or authorized adaptations and intellectual property squatting, and pretending there's no difference. (Some say it's hypocritical for an objecting author to admit to being inspired by Dr. Who or to sell film rights to HBO. It's nothing of the sort.) Also by playing games with what the term "fan fiction" covers. We may need a more precise term for what the authors are objecting to, but the word is not the thing.

2b. Against that, there's an authorial misbelief that copyrights need to be defended aggressively, like trademarks. No, you won't lose copyright control over your existing work if you don't defend it. But if you don't move against infringing works when you find out about them, you can't sue them later on.

2c. My favorite living and my favorite deceased author have each expressed visceral revulsion against would-be writers playing in their private sandboxes, but none in principle against transformation into other media. I believe this attitude is inherent in their greatness as writers, and I know what side my moral bread is buttered on. There's nothing wrong with playing around with others' fictional creations you love; it's a wholly natural impulse. But for ghod's sake, do it in private, and don't assume that the original author is going to like it, or has to put up with it.

2d. What we are coming to.

3. Also remarkably fallacious, this piece of chronological snobbery. Assuming it's serious at all, but these days who can tell? Argues that the computer mouse is obsolete, not for any concrete reason, but because it was invented nearly 50 years ago, and the keyboard is older then that. What about language, then? That's even older still; should we toss that out too?

4. "Nothing Can Possibly Go Worng" Department. After months of insisting that, if your gas and electricity bills suddenly jump up after the installation of one of the new electronic meters, it's your usage that's changed and you just didn't realize it, because their machines are perfect, the utility PG&E finally admits that the dang things don't work.

5. Music Department. Small-town orchestras and ensembles are usually pretty well-behaved and give sober, unobjectionable, perhaps inspired and perhaps not, renditions. For a really eccentric performance, you have to go to the big city.

5a. Due credit to DGK for having previously identified "spectralism" to me. We had some more of it, just not as good.

5b. I said that the pianist looked "as pale as a teen idol vampire," I did. I did not say that he also looked remarkably like Matthew Gray Gubler, nor that the conductor, a peppery little old guy with a startlingly flushed complexion, looked like a cross between Patrick Stewart and Ben Kingsley.
calimac: (puzzle)
2010-05-11 02:37 pm

Britannia sinks beneath the waves

So it appears that Nick, courting two lovers at once as if he were a man soliciting bids from two removal van firms, has finally made a deal with Dave. I feel slightly sick. Not as sick as those who have to live under the result, of course.

No, wait: it appears they haven't finished the deal yet. In which case, why did Dave actually accept appointment as Prime Minister, and not just, as in the old formulation, undertake to attempt to form a government? This seems precipitate.

The trick for the Lib Dems will be to avoid seeming responsible for the Tory slashing budget cuts to come. Vince Cable, LD's treasury spokesman, is the best they have, and it'd be nice to preserve his reputation.

The best thing for me to do is reprint what I wrote in the comment section of a British LJ on Sunday, with annotations added:

---

I'm not so sure that PR1 really is there for the taking. The backbench Tories are vehemently against it. (As why should they not be? They'd lose many of their seats, and the Tories have more safe seats than all other parties put together, so, like Smaug losing a golden cup,2 the prospect has them all the more incensed.) And Cameron can't make them go along with it, any more than Heath could have in '74.3 In fact, it appears that most Tories are furious at their leader, for failing to achieve a majority win in an election they saw as a sure bet.

I'm actually amused at how panicked many Lib Dems are at the possibility of a coalition with the Conservatives. I have no love for the Conservatives either, but if you support what is, in practice, a third party, and you don't want to just remain in opposition permanently, and you don't want to devolve into an appendage to Labour (as the Australian National Party is to their Liberals on the federal level), then working with the Conservatives is something that's going to happen occasionally. You can't practice inclusive politics and tabernacle politics4 at the same time.

Of course the LDs are rooked without PR, and they're not going to get it from the Tories. One would hope that Nick Clegg's political instincts are at least as good as Jeremy Thorpe's, for goodness sake.5 In fact, I wonder what negotiations could possibly still be going on. In my view, the C-LD meeting should last about five minutes, and consist of Nick saying, "So tell me, Dave, can you deliver PR? And by 'PR' I don't mean AV.6 And by 'deliver' I don't mean a commission or a committee or a conference to discuss it. We've done that.7 I mean a bill with an enforced three-line whip."8 And when Dave replies, "You know I can't do that," Nick stands up, says, "Nice talking to you," and leaves, to make a call at Number Ten.9

1. Proportional representation, the sine qua non without which the Liberal Democrats should refuse to form a coalition with anybody.
2. J.R.R. Tolkien, The Hobbit, chapter 12.
3. The last time the Conservatives tried (and failed) to make a deal with the Liberals.
4. Tabernacle politics: The belief that all virtue lies within, and only within, the tabernacle, i.e. your own party, and all without is chaos and darkness. Most famously practiced by Aneurin Bevan, the 1940s-50s Labour politician who said that the Tories were "lower than vermin." They don't make invective like that any more.
5. Thorpe was the Liberal leader who had the sense, barely, to avoid being wooed too cheaply by Edward Heath in 1974. As Thorpe's career collapsed a couple of years later in the wake of some of the worst misjudgment exercised by a British political figure between the Profumo Affair and the recent MPs expenses row, it's remarkable that he showed more wisdom on this occasion.
6. Alternative Vote (in British) or Instant Runoff (in American), the system used for counting Hugo ballots, and one with inconsistent prospects for actually delivering proportional representation in multiple seats.
7. Tony Blair, on assuming office, promptly commissioned a thorough report on PR possibilities. It was the best-written government commission report ever issued (because it was written by its chairman, Roy Jenkins, biographer of Gladstone and Churchill), and you can read it here. It made a definitive recommendation for a particular system, and it was supposed to be followed by a referendum on implementation. But there was no referendum.
8. Three-line whip: a voting instruction underlined three times. The ultimate appeal by party leaders to their MPs' loyalty. Quite seriously enforceable.
9. The Prime Minister's office. When Gordon Brown was still in it.