Why Oddballs Like Authoritarianism – And Why They Shouldn’t

Our first experience of belonging (or not, for some) is of a family.  And even in dysfunctional families, the parental authority, if it’s worth anything enforces the “he/she is weird, but he/she is ours.” In school, also, for the truly odd kid, the teacher and the supervising assistant, or whatever, are the ones who intervene to stop abuse by peers.

So at the back of the mind of a lot of oddlings — no matter how or what makes you odd — is the idea that a benevolent dictator could MAKE others accept you.  That you could fit in.

I completely understand the radicalization of minorities.

via Belonging — The Great Divorce a Blast from the Past From September 2015 — According To Hoyt

Oddly, I never got the idea in all of my bullied days that a more active, benevolent authority would have helped me. What I absorbed from my school days was that school officials were well-meaning and helpless. The official rules of the school were impossible to enforce in their entirety; there were simply too many violations. So the appearance of order was the goal. The bottom of the social hierarchy had simply to get through the day as best they could.

Just remember, bootlegging didn’t stop in Chicago just because Capone went to prison.

Anyway, Read the whole thing.



Are We Still Screaming About the Hugos?

I consider myself an author at least 20% of the time (and therein lies the problem, of course). But I can’t find myself giving a moldy dog dropping about the Hugos. I don’t even imagine, in my wildest fantasies, winning one. I think of industry/creative awards in much the same way I think of government: something regrettably necessary, which I desire to have as little to do with as possible.

But it wouldn’t be the modern age if we didn’t have the cultural left politicizing something and then lamenting how politicized it’s become, obstinately unaware of their contribution to that phenomenon, so now the Hugos are something about which the great ideological divide will now squabble like dogs in a boneyard.

According to Hoyt has a fine rundown of the deep lack of self-reflection the SJW’s bring to this, as they bring to everything else, entitled The Goat Kicks Back. I invite you to read it, and reflect on how no one moaning about those awful awful puppies will be intellectually capable of listening.

It’s very simple: when you grant yourself exclusive rights to blow condemnation and bellow dudgeon, people will see through it, and they will cease to take you seriously. When you expend that much energy telling people they’re the enemy, eventually they’re going to believe you. And they’ll act accordingly.

And you can shout yourself hoarse that it’s because they hatez teh wimmins, and teh gheys, and teh darkees, but you’ll convince no one who isn’t already one of your number. Because in order to believe that, someone would have to already be convinced that dissent from crit theory is the same as bigotry. Which is not as axiomatic a proposition as some would believe.

They’re not rejecting people of different races and genders, Social Justice Worriers. They’re just rejecting you.

Friday Linkfest: This, That, and T’other

It’s not the post that Friday needs, but the post the Friday deserves:

Peace out, cub scouts. Have a great weekend.

A Message I Think Many of Us Self-Published Could Use.

At the end of a re-posted Sarah Hoyt Human Wave “manifesto”

You shall not spend your life explaining why your not-boring is better than your fellow writers not-boring.  Instead you will shut up and write.


There is nothing lamer, sadder, and more pathetic that author-on-author hate. Does anyone imagine that J.K. Rowling gives one tu’penny fark how many people slag Harry Potter? Of course not, which is why I stopped hating on them years ago. I still haven’t read them, because I don’t care, but good for her. Seriously. Another person’s success is not my failure, no matter how mystifying I find things.

I have never published anything that sold in quantities I want. That’s, well, it’s not okay, but whining about it accomplishes what? Grumping about people who didn’t like my work accomplishes what?

Aside from making you an entitled ninny and pseudo-aristocrat, I mean?

Henry VIII and His Desperate Dynasty

Sarah Hoyt addresses the elephant in in the doublet:

Is that a fat joke?

Anyway, so every author agrees Henry VIII as a young man was a true renaissance man, good at everything and so very good looking.  And every author wonders what dread disease caused him to turn not just into a murderous tyrant, but a stupid murderous tyrant in old age.

Except if you dig in you find that when his dumbest moves were made was after he’d killed his two ministers, first the great one and then his apprentice.  (Wolsey and Cromwell.)  Which brings us to… was he really that brilliant or were they great at manipulating him.

She goes on to question his authorship of his books and music, the quality of his poetry, and the wisdom of his policy, given that despite helping himself to the centuries-old wealth of monastic England, he still left the kingdom in debt.

Which is nice to see, because I’m plumb tired of Henry VIII and really, all his dynasty. The Tudors (1485-1603) are a vastly overrated family, as a ruling group, and as people. Their accomplishments are dwarfed by the attention afforded them. Continue reading → Henry VIII and His Desperate Dynasty