> [...] readers [...] are inclined to reject the immutability of a described reality that contradicts their own preferences.
I think it is almost the opposite. People (readers or the people making the stories) are increasingly unwilling to accept ambiguity and uncertainty in fictional universes.
It used to be that every time you told a story like a fairy tale, it could be slightly different. Maybe cinderella was told slightly differently at my home than at yours. But that is fine, as long as the basic points of the story are there. This concept is totally alien to many people. Stories are no longer rough archetypes, but the exact media (film or book) with all it's details. People can't tolerate contradictions, and clamor for canon. And that leads to the urge to explain and connect everything, and stuff like Midichlorian, the virus that makes Klingons look human, or the convoluted Zelda timeline.
A couple years ago J. Michael Straczynski (of Babylon 5 fame) suggested to reboot the original Star Trek. Not as a prequel, or an alternative universe, but just a new show with new actors, unconnected to the original, telling new and modern stories. He said, let's treat Star Trek like a Shakespeare play. If multiple actors can play Hamlet, why can't there be multiple interpretations of Kirk?
I think this is the result of narrative structure falling by the wayside in lots of popular canons. You can tell a million variations of the odyssey because Odysseus is nobody. You can plop just about any set of characters into the story and it works. We still have stories like this, the Mission Impossible series is the same story told differently, the new Twister is a retelling, anyone can be James Bond. But if you want a long running series you need an interesting universe to explore (which requires rules and consistency) and/or compelling characters people want to put in situations. It's why Family Guy can do a Star Wars episode but Star Wars can't do Family Guy, it's why the Ghost Buster's retelling flopped because they thought it was a narrative story but it was actually a character story.
>>> He said, let's treat Star Trek like a Shakespeare play. If multiple actors can play Hamlet, why can't there be multiple interpretations of Kirk?
Assuming he really said that... it's really irksome that he took a scenario where the classic Shakespeare plays are interpreted by different actors while still using the original scripts, and claimed he would be doing something similar if hired to write his own star trek scripts.
It's pretentious B.S. to make the Hamlet comparison when what he's proposing is closer to how they make James Bond flicks.
Crowds generally like sequels and canon even if it makes films worse.
We did get a reboot of Star Trek with someone else playing Kirk. It was technically an in universe reboot and it was dumb. It probably would have been just as dumb if it wasn’t an in universe reboot.
Indeed — we also had the fan-made Star Trek Continues, which was essentially perfect as a modernisation with the same set-dressing yet higher production values; and Kirk appearing in Strange New Worlds in ways that make perfect (to the limit TV ever does) sense, telling new and old stories without needing to break or reject the old world building (time travel is a wonderful narrative aid for that) or characterisation.
That was a prominent problem. But in general I feel the larger issue is that films are getting sequels because sequels are commercially safer, and then writers are being asked to figure out why. Especially when it’s a franchise revitalization and the actors are old but they want the nostalgia points.
Yes, though I'd also say that Strange New Worlds and Lower Decks have similar (TNG) vibes to The Orville.
And I'd put all of Picard in the same bucket as Discovery. The characters in each of those felt like someone saw the fan-made Star Trek Renegades and pitched the core ideas with a bigger budget. And I expect more of that with the Section 31 show.
Furiosa made me realize that this kind of storytelling, one that relies on worldbuilding and often prior-worldbuilding is the (or a) current way we approach movies. I mean pretty obvious considering the primacy of superhero movies, but worth accepting to better understand what's going on.
I've come to believe that one of the interesting aspects of the Mad Max movies is that often (not always) director George Miller makes them using the current popular language of cinema -- Mad Max and Road Warrior were Ozspoitation, Thunderdome (though admittedly not entirely his vision) was a Spielbergian blockbuster. Furiosa works wholehearted in the current vogue, building off and elaborating Fury Road. Not judging really, just observing. It's where we are now.
I found Fury Road's rough sketching of its immediate surroundings and setting, the implications of a backstory peeking out in the background but never focused on, far more effective than the explicit fill-in-the-blanks of Furiosa.
I fully enjoy both when done well. When the initial worldbuilding is thought-provoking and fun to theorize on, and the seuqels/prequels fill in the blanks in satisfying ways. The best example is Star Wars - "From a Certain Point of View" takes it so far as to give the trash compactor monster a backstory, and it turns out to be force sensitive. I loved it.
In a way The Mad Max movies remind me of the Zelda game series in that they'll have recurring characters and themes but aren't really hung up on canon and will cheerfully contradict each other.
Do they really contradict much? I've seen them all and I thought they fit together just fine. I just rewatched Fury Road, the first Mad Max, and Furiosa recently, while me and the girlfriend were looking for 4k/5.1 content to try out the sound system and tv on. Been a minute since I saw 2 and 3 but nothing jumps out at me from memory.
Well, the timeline of when the apocalypse happened is a bit weird -- like did it happen in the lifetime of Max himself or not? And is Max supposed to be exactly the same person in each movie? I'm not even talking about the actor change in Fury Road -- I mean in the first he's living in a grim near-future (but not destroyed) Australia, and the following movies present an ever more sophisticated post-apocalyptic society with their own cultures and traditions that would need time to evolve. It isn't even clear if the characters in the recent two even know about pre-war civilization. One of the trailers for Furiosa claims that it is set 70 years after the apocalypse. So how could she have met young Max in Fury Road? He'd be in his 90s at least.
The framing of most all of the Max Max movies is that they are stories being told by an unknown narrator. So any variation is fair game, I think. Unreliable narrators and such. In the context of the new movies, they've even created characters who have the job of remembering and telling the stories -- which is another really imaginative and compelling elaboration on what was merely framing in the earlier films.
"The people in this story are not like me: I find this implausible so I'm leaving it a one-star review" is to be expected. But that's already the case (if you want substantiating evidence just read my Amazon or Goodreads one-star reviews).
As somebody who really enjoyed Lev Grossman's book The Magicians, I remember being somewhat perplexed by the bizarrely high number of one-star reviews on Goodreads until I realized that the predominant reason for the poor reviews was because the protagonist is self-destructive, not particularly likable, and the story isn't one of conventional redemption.
The Magicians currently sits at 3.5 out of 5 stars on Goodreads, whilst pedestrian pablum like Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone has around a 4.5 rating, so make of that what you will.
Many things associated with the internet and forums and social media predated its existence, they were just harder to learn about when distribution was more difficult.
And with franchises like Star Trek and Doctor Who also being incredibly popular back in the 60s, a lot of things that people associate with modern fandom were quite visible back then too. The actor who played the 12th Doctor (Peter Capaldi) was into the show enough that his demands to run the fan club and letters to the BBC had some of the production staff joke they wished the Daleks would exterminate him:
The last showrunner before RTD's return (Chris Chibnall) was a vocal member of the fanclub that appeared on TV complaining about the state of the program and its writing:
And fans have written off storylines and elements they dislike since who knows when. If you follow the history of fandom through things like letters and BBS boards and Usenet and whatever else, you'll see many of the same things you see on social media today, whether that's fans rejecting the series 'canon' or timeline or worldbuilding, criticism that things have gone downhill, fanworks and concepts, etc.
The internet merely took this sort of media engagement from something you'd have to specifically seek out, to something that's front and centre on platforms with millions of people.
In the case of Chibnall its quiet obvious why fans are ignoring cannon. He did first. The plot of his run ignored previously established cannon from preceeding season and made large changes to the established lore around the doctors origin, and the entirety of Galafray society said and shown on screen. So fans chose to ignore plots from his time as showrunner. Its like when fans of books ignored unfaithful movie adaptations.
> Science fiction is a dialogue, a tennis match, in which the Idea is volleyed from one side of the net to the other. Ridiculous to say that someone ‘stole’ an idea: no, no, a thousand times no. The point is the volley, and how it’s carried, and what statement is made by the answering ‘statement.’ In other words—if Burroughs initiates a time-gate and says it works randomly, and then Norton has time gates confounded with the Perilous Seat, the Siege Perilous of the Round Table, and locates it in a bar on a rainy night—do you see both the humor and the volley in the tennis match?
(unless someone has been messing with time gates, Cherry has over a decade on Stross, and Stross wasn't even FIAWOL enough to publish as Strhoss)
This conceit is especially cogent when one considers that many of Cherryh's works are to some degree a deconstruction of, and re-examination of previous works:
- _Rimrunner_ takes a powered armor trooper out of her armor and then examines the place of military in society from a compleatly different angle than Heinlein's _Starship Troopers_
- The Faded Sun trilogy takes an honour-bound warrior culture which has a strange alien life form as a central aspect of society and examines its workings and the interactions with the life form and ecologies in a way which is not possible in Frank Herbert's _Dune_ with its physics laws defying sandworms
- the Morgaine trilogy takes the concept of gates and looks at how such devices might relate to and interact with not just societies and cultures, but the very fabric of reality
Piers Anthony didn’t quite rail against his fans but he complained bitterly about having a contract that obligated him to write Xanth books at a superhuman rate even if it made him rich. He probably hates Xanth more than I did.
Similarly Douglas Adams hit it big with Hitchiker’s Guide to the Galaxy which created a new kind of fan. I read an Asimov book and then read more Asimov books and then Heinlein and Pohl and Herbert and Anderson and Leiber and Smith and Anthony and many others. People whose first book was Hitchhiker followed the trajectory of reading the same book hundreds of times rather than hundreds of books by different authors. Adams’ success left him typecast and boxed in, something he was resentful about, probably more resentful than I was at feeling really alone in a world of ‘sci-fi fans’ who had never branched out past Doug Adams (and who wouldn’t have even bought a Doug Adams book that was the slightest bit different.)
——-
I’ll not though I enjoyed Stross’s early books (Iron Sunrise and Singularit Sky) and I like his antipope blog but I could not stand following him on Mastodon because he uses the word “fascist” the way some people use another f-word, as in “Keir Starmer is a fascist”
He gets halfway through that article before he uses that word, to his credit.
I grew up around the same time as Musk and certainly the branch of 1970s sci-fi he talks about appealed to me a lot, but he leaves out the story of the “new wave” which formed in opposition to the strand he’s talking about but ran out of steam in the 1970s and the rise of Tor Press which had a much more militaristic (would someone dare say “fascist?”) orientation which turned me off.
Can go back to Arthur Conan Doyle, who disliked having to keep writing Sherlock Holmes stories. (Famously killing him off, only to bring him back later when a successful story was needed.)
One can imagine poor, blind, Homer, having been fed up with his Odysseus fen asking for yet another year's worth of adventures, deciding to sing about Ithaca and Penelope once and for all.
Reminds me of J.D. Salinger and how he was always mildly irritated that despite having written many other novels (Franny and Zooey, Bananafish, etc.) he is only ever remembered for Catcher in the Rye.
Tor had a militaristic orientation? That must have been before the Nielsen Haydens were running it - my first instinct was to think "surely he means Baen, yes?" But Baen was always niche even for sf, so far as I can tell.
Irrelevant personal politics aside and in entire fairness to Stross, his use of "fascist" in this article is quoting someone who had complained about the fascism supposedly implicit in worldbuilding.
(Look who only learned in 2024 that Jim Baen was one of Tor's founders. Not that I was precisely wrong in what I said, but that's a pretty significant and obvious piece of relevant history to have overlooked!)
> People whose first book was Hitchhiker followed the trajectory of reading the same book hundreds of times
I have never met anyone meeting that description. Back in my day, nerdy pursuits were not very tribal. A franchise did not form someone's identity mostly because there wasn't enough content about it to devote oneself to. You watched a movie, read a book or whatever and liked it. A superfan would be someone who sought out a game or a graphic novel but it gives you only a few extra hours in the world at most. A fan club would be a yearly magazine or something. You had to find other things to entertain you.
My friends were pretty core Hitchhiker generation with very similar background/humour to DNA. It was a pretty common early book. We might have reread it, played the infernal video game, loved the radio show, and could recite the famous bits but there really wasn't anything you could fall into some solipsistic hole about. There isn't enough there. It would be something to obliquely reference as an in-joke but wasn't something that could even sustain a conversation other than complaining about that game.
Hitchhiker fans were also likely Python fans, Tolkien fans, Pratchett fans, Harry Harrison, Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke, graphic novels, Red Dwarf, Warhammer or like DNA, very much into the birth of the home computer which really was a bottomless pit of discovery and conversation.
I've only met one person who spoke of HHGG (or "H2G2"), and it's surely a fandom like Star Trek, Star Wars or something, but I feel confused at your characterization. Is it especially common in HHGG to not branch out?
It's remarkably common for D&D 5E players to only play that TTRPG. The existence of the acronym ought to be a clue that there are several thousand others...
D&D can be a really great game if you have a group of players which is really cohesive in that it gives a lot of room for character development, world building and all of that. Gygax was really interested in the improvisational acting aspects but D&D can get bogged down in the mechanics, statsmaxxing, etc.
On top of players taking it too seriously and the burden that puts on the GM you have the problem that it needed too many dice, too many books (you need the Player’s Guide and the GM guide and a Monster Manual to start and after spending that much money you don’t have have a sample scenario; granted there was a lot of great material for campaign settings that you could buy.). Combat is OK but not great.
There was a 2nd generation of games such as Paranoia, Toon and Call of Cthulhu which set out to address the problems of D&D and all of these come in the form of one book with a scenario which makes it easy to start as a GM.
When my son was younger I would run Paranoia and Toon games for pre-teens and they would have a blast. Games like that can be run on a pickup basis, if a kid comes in late you can give them a preroll and not interrupt the flow at all. One of those kids became a D&D GM later so I’d say those games are a great introduction to the genre and ought to be better known.
I remembered in the 1980s going to various events which targeted “gifted” kids and I met more than 5 of those but nobody who had a broad interest in sci-fi.
I'm confused by the use of Greedo as an illustrative example. The only reason people care about that is because George Lucas had the brilliant idea to change it. If you publish two versions of your story depicting two explicitly contradictory versions of an event, then people are going to pay attention to it, nothing to do with modern audiences?
Before, if you read a sci-fi story and wanted an explanation of a plot point or how some tech worked, you would just imagine it and move on. Maybe you had a friend you could talk it through with, but there were a lot less of us back then.
Now there is a thriving ecosystem around these discussions. People put forth their theories, other people debunk them. They spend hours reading and writing fan fiction to flesh them out. They immerse themselves in the act of participating in the world-building in a way that was simply not possible before.
There is a feedback loop here - more engagement leads to more controversy leads to more engagement.
Certainly some people have always questioned things, but it seems impossible to me that these new ways of engaging haven’t resulted in changes in the quantity and qualities of these types of fans/readers.
right, but my point was that you should need to do detective work to figure out the date of a post, especially when the title refers to a transition in time from one era to another
Fiction has always been malleable, a two-way conversation between the storyteller and the reader/listener/viewer. Fiction is older than novels, and will outlive the strangely modern idea that there exists a definitive canon dictated by the all-knowing author.
For the vast majority of human history, fiction was transmitted by word of mouth, performances, rituals, and countless retellings in which each storyteller could add their own flourishes. There were many versions of the same story that often conflicted with one another, and people were okay with that. Even stories that were written down were often modified as they were copied by hand, translated, and re-copied over the centuries.
Moreover, it is no secret that many authors struggle to choose between alternate endings to their own masterpieces, and often change their minds after their work is published. That's how we get revised editions with new scenes, changed scenes, and sometimes even radically different endings.
Every fictional world is a spectrum of possible worlds with vague boundaries. The author gets to write about one of them, usually only one of them. The rest is left to the reader's imagination, and this broad space for reinterpretation is exactly what makes literature so interesting.
> you make as you play or experience it, traditional fiction can seem arbitrary, even dictatorial. "I wouldn't make that choice, so why should this viewpoint character?" is the sensibility.
> One obvious corollary is that this new generation of readers (not you: if you're reading this blog then, like me, you're probably pale, male, and stale) are inclined to reject the immutability of a described reality that contradicts their own preferences. "The people in this story are not like me: I find this implausible so I'm leaving it a one-star review" is to be expected. But that's already the case
Is the author saying that that new readers lack empathy?
From the excerpted section I totally see why that's the question, and yet that's not quite how I parsed it in the essay.
The author makes the point that readers are more likely to reject the author's imposed world/structure/facts. The hypothesis is that we (readers) think reading is interactive, but I wonder if it's more postmodern ("inviting the reader to participate") than that.
In my opinion, there's crappy "gotcha" analysis like cinema sins which is mostly cheap entertainment. It doesn't really encourage one to engage deeply with the original work like Bret's posts do.
Regardless, I thought the author was discussing this type of readership/fandom
It's funny that copyright somehow got mixed with the concept of canonicity over time. That a company or a person has the right to oxymoronically define the reality of a fictional universe is a bit crazy when you think about it.
The word "canon" is also an interesting choice for this concept. It references that the church - sticking to the most popular example - "decided" what was canon when christianity was forming, and so can authors about their works. Cynicism aside, I don't think religious leaders understood canonicity as their favored interpretation, but as actual truth, which is obviously not the case with modern media.
My point is the author's is also a headcanon. What they do have the right to - which fans don't - is to write fiction which can legally generate revenue referencing their previous works. And within those pieces of fiction they will generally refer to their headcanon, but it's no more special than the fans'
edit: using an alt bc I use antiprocrast on may username and wanted to answer. hey, it's a saturday!
> And within those pieces of fiction they will generally refer to their headcanon, but it's no more special than the fans'.
If it's the same author writing these pieces of fiction, then speaking by definition, the author's opinion is more special by being the creator of those works and therefore can create fiction that reinforces their headcanon (which is why it's called canon). So I think calling the author's opinion less special is wrong for the author's tie to the work will always be more special than the consumer by virtue of being the creator.
I mean… I don’t see acting wrong with that, really. As a fan, it sucks to have the story retconned, but it’s not your story, it’s Disney’s.
Official canon, at that point, is just a marketing tool.
If you as the reader don’t like it, don’t engage with it.
The only real restriction placed upon readers is that they can’t sell their alternative stories under the franchise name, which seems fair to me. It’d cause too much market confusion otherwise.
> But there seems to be an emergent discourse in fandom about the legitimacy of the authorial position.
My impression is that this is more a consequence of the rise of sequels (and prequels) than of interactive media, in combination with the internet facilitating fans to communicate with each other at an unprecedented level. The longer a franchise is going on, the more likely it is for it to become incoherent and to diverge from the expectations of those who absorbed the previous installments, in particular (but not only) if different leading creatives are involved over time.
The "franchise" novels are similar. I started reading the original James Bond books, but after a few it became clear that they were all the same formula, and I gave it up.
TV miniseries suffer from the similar problems. See "Lost" for incoherency.
“Lost” was just typical J.J. Abrahams mystery-box spitballing. I gave up halfway into the first season because I thought no way this is going to have any coherent resolution.
>This essay was in part triggered by a bizarre opinion I saw re-tweeted on Bluesky
Okay, serious question, is "tweet" trademarked? Can we start putting tweet/retweet on Bluesky/Mastodon already?
It's an interesting perspective but it's sad that the author seems obsessed with terrible opinions they found on the Internet. I make this mistake, too, sometimes. I think the best alternative is not to share it, however much we want to rant about it, but focus our energies on sharing good things. It's very hard to me to do this, though.
As I grew with interactive media, video-games, I never thought about the static-ness of pre-vidya media.
I do have my bias toward the era I grew up with, though. I'll never be able to understand people's focus on realistic graphics, when games peaked with cartoonish Dreamcast graphics.
I can't imagine what the generation after me will be biased toward compared to the one that will come next. Imagine if VR ever becomes a thing? "Back in my day we used smartphones instead of spending all day in the metaverse!"
I suppose the problem is whether you can respect someone's viewpoint without agreeing with it. As people say these days, it's "valid" to write the story however you want, just as it's valid for me not to enjoy it. It's a good idea to avoid making assumptions of the authors' character based on their works, but I suppose it's not hard to find someone who does that, specially in the world wide web.
Why anyone hasn't made this into a miniseries is baffling. It's quite an epic. Not only that, it really happened. No worries about canon. No worries about sequels and prequels, because there is no beginning or end to historical stories. The stories are fractal, in that there's no end to going into a particular aspect in depth.
Do professional writers have to consider this "new reader" from a commercial point-of-view or is Stross just thinking about how he might adapt his writing to this group to be gracious towards them?
Not sure if there is some way to iterate given online feedback. Like, write a book from the pale, male, and stale point of view. Use an LLM to gather feedback on what people criticize. Then write almost the same book again, from the POV of a different character, taking into account interesting criticisms.
However, it may be better for a successful author to just get away from these hyper-online criticism spaces and write what they want to write, as long as they've got books lined up they're already excited to write.
Agreed. I don't want Stross skewing (especially unconsciously) toward his (imperfect) understanding of his most unhappy readers. Strength to your sword arm, Charlie! I get you, at least!
For 50 years I've read vast swaths of fiction, all kinds. Almost all of Stross and fellow travelers for instance.
So I'm pale, male, and stale, and (thus?) I can't for the life of me understand where the majority of the commenters here are coming from. I sure as hell don't want the miasma here bleeding into one of my favorite authorial sources of entertainment.
> Not sure if there is some way to iterate given online feedback.
There have been a some novels and novel-length works written a chapter at a time in public. The Martian by Andy Weir, for example is probably the most commercially successful. Many works by qntm (https://qntm.org/fiction) that are popular in this community have been written that way too.
Weir may have invented a new genre: STEMcore. His narrator-protagonists face a series of puzzles which they resolve with imaginative STEM skills and... well, that's most of it. I mean, he sets up a pretty good near-future world and gives the protagonist one big problem to resolve that helps drive tension (making it a quick read), but ultimately you're reading a short story that ate a physics textbook.
STEMcore (which, to be clear, is just a term I made up) mostly solves problems with STEM. Contrast with something like The Expanse which builds the setting from (some) realistic physics (plus a few enabling premisses) and mostly solves problems with politics and tactics.
I think Fifty Shades of Grey has had more commercial success than The Martian. It was originally published as an episodic piece of Twilight fan fiction (Master of the Universe)
He sort of puts this in a fact of matter way without passing judgement, but I honestly hate it. This is absolutely an entitlement mentality. You see it in chipotle lines, people somehow think because you're paid a measely check you have to sing and dance for them. I wish people were more accepting of what writers gave them as just a piece of writing to ingest and understand. Fuck you and your fucking head cannons. If you hate something so much, read something else.
I think there is a broader thing going on. The amount of garbage out there means every decision needs to be critical. Everything needs to be viewed through various lenses to decide if it is good for you, the people around you, the planet, and so on.
By garbage I don't mean low-quality, I mean systematically bad. From sports where you have to look out for slave labour and greenwashing; clothing where you have to look out for PFAS, microplastics, ocean pollution; food where you have to look out for various poisons and almost-poisons categorised by the western diet; tech where you have to look out for privacy and all else covered on HN; online services where you have to look out for enshittification, addiction and depression caused by social media; and so on.
Nothing is simple anymore. If you haven't proved or signalled that you are on the right side of history before I start consuming your content, you get a critical eye. I wish it wasn't like this, but it has to be, because of the garbage world we/certain systems have created.
It's snarky self-deprecation, and a concession about the changing demographics of the sf/f community over time, and particularly online. I seriously doubt Charles Stross is actually bigoted against white people.
But of course this being Hacker News, we don't grok humor.
I tend to agree, but just because I’d rather not read it, and not because it’s actually irrelevant. If you’re making cultural commentary, especially about how culture is changing, it gets political. Perhaps that is less true for many decades but not so for this one. Seems like culture is generally ahead of politics and actually creating it, subject to some delay. But lately the opposite is true.
Thing is, it kind of informs the entire piece. I don't think that the author's thinking is fully crystallized. I think that it's based on "vibes," and political digressions are a part of that.
Ultimately, the author is reacting to what he's hearing on BlueSky, which is a left-wing-coded sort of echo chamber:
> This essay was in part triggered by a bizarre opinion I saw re-tweeted on Bluesky, asserting that the very act of world-building is "fascistic":
> "I view worldbuilding as fairly fascist tbqh. Refusing to allow spaces for the reader's imagination to flourish. Removing the part of the contract between writer and reader that is communal and shared. Grabbing them by the hand as you try and map out a land that does not exist."
He knows that it's a bizarre opinion, and yet he feels compelled to generalize from it.
I think that it's such a strange and uncommon -- truly bizarre -- opinion that it must not be generalized from. Then, I suppose, there'd be no essay -- but it contained few or no true insights, so that's okay.
>Ultimately, the author is reacting to what he's hearing on BlueSky, which is a left-wing-coded sort of echo chamber:
Sure, but I don't understand why that requires him to ramble about anti-vaxxers, some weird political stunts by RFK Jr. that I never previously heard about, or how various billionaire's pet projects are somehow dystopian (the linked article there is even worse). It certainly doesn't require him to use the phrase "inexplicable, unprecedented, intrusion from the Taliban dimension" to describe and validate a plausible take on the political strategy of the Republican party in the USA.
And then at the end he seems almost unaware that the "pale, male and stale" catchphrase is intended as an insult. The whole thing reads to me like a smorgasbord of political signalling. It's as if he's afraid that fen who come up with arguments like the quoted one will try to paint him as a fascist otherwise.
If you're dealing with a commonplace, non-"bizarre" opinion or characteristic, generalize all you like.
If you're dealing with a batshit insane, self-evidently "bizarre" take -- made by somebody terminally online in what is well-known to be an echo chamber -- then it's the height of folly to generalize from it. I'm completely sure that < 0.01% of the reading public shares that weird opinion, so why write about it as though it's indicative of a normal viewpoint or coming trend? That is the height of folly.
The idea of The Author as the final arbiter might be the historical oddity.
The genre of Greek tragedy took characters and events from the Homeric epics but created original works elaborating on specific events and characters. By modern standards we might call this fan fiction, but the Greek did not consider it fiction since these were supposed to be historical events.
I’m annoyed by the amount of sequels and prequels and reboots in the cinema, but I recognize that Shakespeare mostly remixed existing stories and still did pretty well.
>I view worldbuilding as fairly fascist tbqh. Refusing to allow spaces for the reader's imagination to flourish. Removing the part of the contract between writer and reader that is communal and shared. Grabbing them by the hand as you try and map out a land that does not exist.
This is brainrotted shithead opinion is the worst of the modern world. Using a political term for this deprives the meaning of the word. Also I read pricicley to get world building. I love hard scifi.
They just don't make readers, period. Between netflix, tiktok, games, discord and everything else in people's life, who's reading anymore?
Sure, some will read the random wattpad smut, or isekai royalroad story, or the random fanfic; but that's the equivalent of eating soda for dinner: feels good in the moment, bloats you up and it's completely devoid of any nutrition whatsoever. Also messes up the mouth and stomach bacterial ecosystem.
And so no one puts in the hours, nobody puts in the effort and dedication to build taste and to build the necessary mental stamina for difficult readings. To read becomes a very niche activity, like calligraphy, or drawing. A gaping hole widens in mankind's soul and there's nothing that would fill it up again.
As Mark Twain said the one who can read and chooses not to, has no advantage over those who can’t read at all. This sadly reflects in our current politically morass imo.
Let me put this way: I am way older than 20 years ago, I grew up in a different cultural zeitgeist. Reading was definitely not niche then. And it was much more widespread and much more in-depth when the dopamine dispensaries of today didn't exist.
You can put it any way you like, but we know that the US book market is about the same size as what it was 20 years ago [1]. So reading decliced as much as book prices increased. Unless you're talking about another country, of course.
That means people still buy books, not that they still read. What percentage of people who bought Atomic Habits got past the first chapter? Completion rate may have been very different 20 years ago.
Maybe it's an American problem? It sure has declined over the years but I was surprised by the amount of people walking around with books while visiting central Europe this year.
I can confirm this. For several years I resisted getting a smartphone. When I finally relented, I immediately stopped reading books. After all, surfing the web is far more satisfying for the dopamine receptors. On the Internet, everything is split into bite-sized pieces. Just enough to satisfy a short attention span.
I think it is almost the opposite. People (readers or the people making the stories) are increasingly unwilling to accept ambiguity and uncertainty in fictional universes.
It used to be that every time you told a story like a fairy tale, it could be slightly different. Maybe cinderella was told slightly differently at my home than at yours. But that is fine, as long as the basic points of the story are there. This concept is totally alien to many people. Stories are no longer rough archetypes, but the exact media (film or book) with all it's details. People can't tolerate contradictions, and clamor for canon. And that leads to the urge to explain and connect everything, and stuff like Midichlorian, the virus that makes Klingons look human, or the convoluted Zelda timeline.
A couple years ago J. Michael Straczynski (of Babylon 5 fame) suggested to reboot the original Star Trek. Not as a prequel, or an alternative universe, but just a new show with new actors, unconnected to the original, telling new and modern stories. He said, let's treat Star Trek like a Shakespeare play. If multiple actors can play Hamlet, why can't there be multiple interpretations of Kirk?