
This morning the ADHD is exceptionally strong. I’ve been up since 8, and been running side quests, one after the other, because anything will distract me.
While reading the news in bed — no, not a usual thing, but I got distracted by a text message, then flipped over to Bongino reports and it tells you something I haven’t even finished reading the headlines there — I came across an article where Harris’ advisors are lamenting that they have lost the culture war by relying on legacy media.
The implication that the culture has left them behind is paved in with the certainly that they will start their new hip shows on the net and… show us how it’s done.
You and I know it won’t happen, but it bears examining why it won’t happen. It’s important to examine why in fact they had their own Tom Poole and their own Joe Rogan. They were the same people, and were shoved out. They had their own Elon Musk too… And they lost him over the fact they refused to accept jokes made by the Babylon Bee.
The problem they’re facing is not a change in media. I mean, it absolutely is that, in the sense that the alternative media had ended their supremacy of the culture which should NATURALLY have ended a good fifty years ago.
The change in the media, and the appearance of blogs wasn’t only the precipitating incident of the appearance of effective cultural opposition to the left. It was also the inevitable result of how repressive leftist culture had gotten and how iron-clad their control on the traditional forms of the communication-industrial (including the arts) complex had become. Like indie publishing’s success is, sure, contributing to traditional publishing’s failure, but it only got a beginning because trad pub was already failing. Because it was part of the industrial media communication complex and had been (and still is) captured by the left for decades, with the grip tightening.
If this were only about how the left is losing its grip on the culture (It’s lost it, really. We’re now at the moment when everyone realizes it, is all) I wouldn’t have bothered trying to work through extreme ADHD to write about it. I could just post a picture of me doing a little dance, or perhaps a meme about my schadenboner.
But that’s not what I want to talk about.
Look, we’re not the left and they’re not us. If they’re similar to anything it would be an authoritarian theocracy. Which I suspect is why they adore Islam.
They did “conquer the culture” by questioning what was there, and mocking the established norms. But once they took over, all they had to offer was rigid, doctrinaire interpretations of everything from a story wrapped around the news, to literature needing to affirm their core beliefs. And the more those core beliefs proved wrong — particularly after the fall of the USSR — the more they felt a need to push it into everything, and police everything that questioned it.
I’ve often mentioned that the only difference between the early nineties and the late oughts in literature was that in the early nineties they allowed you to maybe give a casual nod to one of their principles, but write the rest of the story as you pleased, while by the late oughts they were policing every detail of the story to see if you’d slipped in something that might oppose them. And then it moved wider. Over the next decade they, obscurely aware that the control wasn’t enough, moved on to try to police the fans. To try to demand people have fun the RIGHT WAY while genuflecting to the latest shibboleths pronounced from on high by the left.
And that’s my reason for writing this today: because if they are losing the culture war (they lost it long ago, in my opinion. It’s only now people are becoming aware of it though) it is because of that move. Of trying to control everything.
The linked article says that Kamala going on talk shows would be viewed as political and that was bad, but the truth is this is what the right has labored under for decades. Their point of view was “Just normal” and ours was “political” and political was bad. This is de facto true in a lot of left-leaning work places and groups today. You protest something overtly political being said and get slapped for being “political” because to their minds they’re not. They’re just repeating what they’ve heard in the whole culture forever, therefore they’re not political. And this assumption — later on he talks about their just being “normal” or something like that, reverting to base mode — is what is making them so profoundly unappealing.
Look, I don’t care if someone has an ambition to star in a Broadway play. I find it a little odd, to say the least, for this to be an ambition for a Supreme Court Judge, but whatever. I find most Americans are more into acting than I am, and would be tempted by something like this. That’s fine. Except go and read about the play Kentaji Brown thought was worth participating in. Go on, read about it. I’ll wait.
It’s not just that the whole thing sounds unbelievably, mind-bogglingly paint-by-the-numbers leftist-obsession infused, no. It’s that the whole thing sounds unbelievably stupid. And for its utter and stultifying nonsense, it relies on…. Shakespeare. I mean, look, you want to make a play about someone running off with xyr/xer/candycone and leaving a guy behind, go ahead and do it. It better be amazing, because I think it’s the fifteen hundredth done this year. But whatever. But to do it by taking one of the archetypal plays of our civilization and then overlying this puerile…. preachy fantasy on it? That’s pathetic. That his is even on Broadway, let alone that a Judge, no matter what a dim bulb she is, thought “Oh, yeah, I must be in this?” It’s pathetic. It’s sad.
Note, I’m not saying that classics shouldn’t be touched or reinterpreted. Or that a lot of those reinterpretations won’t be stupid. I’m saying this one is particularly boring, repetitive, and OMG haven’t we seen a million of these before? The abandon the heartthrob guy at the altar and run off with the unlikely goes all the way back to The Graduate, which was not that shocking to me at 16. That the unlikely is now “Gender neutral” is…. well. I yawned while typing that.
In fact, at this point if you wanted to shock me, you’d have a woman wanting to get married and have kids. Even Disney has stopped having a romance at the end, opting instead for “empowering” its girl boss heroes. And supposed rom coms often end with the woman going off to “find herself.” Which is why Hallmark eats everyone’s lunch, but that’s something else. (Yes, repetitive and boring — look, I have someone in the house who loves Hallmark Christmas movies — but they’re NOT PRETENDING TO BE ART AND GROUND BREAKING. They don’t demand applause.)
Look, I don’t think we’re at danger of becoming them. For one, the individualists, as always, fail to organize.
But it is important to know in these days, as we breathe in and take a pause, to realize that yes, already, there are people running around screaming that you have to “be this way”, “write this way”, “play this way” to be “on the right.”
It’s very very important, while we stand on shaky ground, to reject that nonsense. First of all, the call to “normalize” a single vision is the call of a dying vision. Only those who are unsure want to control every expression of the culture.
Even traditionalists wrote things that made other traditionalists raise their eyebrows, before the left went all ascendant. And sometimes it was the truly odd things that started conversations.
Look, I’m not saying this because I write what I write, and because the novel being slowly and excruciatingly edited is … well, the most normal character is a gay male. (And no the book isn’t in the slightest sexually transgressive. Mostly because I’m not even sure how to write that and make it fun in science fiction.) The entire book is a sociological exploration of important topics of being human (yes, sounds about as fun as shredded lettuce, but trust me, it’s also a gonzo adventure involving firefights, sword fights, baking and as my betas informed me, an absolutely gargantuan number of babies. Babies as a good thing. I told you I was a weirdo.) and gee, I am cringing at the thought of what “some people” theoretically on my own side will say.
This is a problem. I mean the fact I’m cringing. It betrays the first signs of people running around trying to define “the right” according to rigid parameters, and trying to make it so that artists can ONLY express themselves within those parameters.
I didn’t write the book (any of my books) to be transgressive. I know some very good writers, even on our side, can be motivated by that, but that’s not how I work. I tend to start from “what if” and at some point the whole bolus comes to life, and sometimes it’s even compelling and makes sense.
But I’ve been yelled at in the past because people — and yes, I do get some of this is trauma, too, on THEIR part — assume anything that is “what the left would have done” (but is it really? REALLY? Think about it) is an attempt to make them “like the other side” and to disrupt their thought.
I was yelled at about Witchfinder because I had a “fated queen” at the end. Even though the world build is bog standard fantasy, and therefore “the king and the land are one” is a thing. (And like other magic, fails to work in real life.) Because apparently it was a disgrace for a “libertarian” to write a monarchy.
I was yelled at from BOTH SIDES about A Few Good Men, because people on the left decried it as homophobic since the main characters are gay, never engage in what a reviewer I like very charmingly described as “exchange of precious body fluids” on the screen, and spend a lot of time debating and fighting for the principles in America’s Founding documents. I was decried by the right, because, well, they’re gay and this is obviously my attempt to preach social Marxism (which makes about as much sense as musical Marxism, but never mind. Social Gramscianism makes more sense, but not much since his fixation was not on sexual minorities but racial ones. Never mind. It’s something people have convinced themselves is a thing. On both sides. Kind of like institutional racism.)
So why were the characters gay? Well, there’s a ton of reasons, if you analyze the book, including the layering of a culture of secrecy in a world where it is sometimes a death penalty matter (though not where/at the social class they are.) It explains a lot of their isolation and how they might not have figured out what is going on behind the scenes.
Is that why I did it? Oh, heck no. I did it because that’s the way the characters were in my head. Because that’s how I work.
In the same way the new book is not the way it is to make you consider sex and gender issues, and the cultural implications of it in reproduction, or the innate characteristics of hormonal expression (in other animals, since this doesn’t work in humans), or the horrors of utopianism and designing humans to be “perfect”, or… I mean, all those things are there. They fell in. And from them logically came the discussions about what to do when a re-barbarized culture is discovered by an advanced one, and how and if it can even be integrated, when there are other biological differences, or if they should be preserved, like zoo animals, in a way. These are, of course the questions that science fiction used to ask, before it devolved (in the major houses, guys. I know Baen doesn’t do this) into endless just-so stories depicting the imagined racial and social oppression of the 21st century over and over again, in costume for the “science fiction” part.
But I wrote it because at 14 I read The Left Hand of Darkness thought “This is wrong” (Well, I was fourteen) and overnight got afflicted with the entire world and had to write it. But I couldn’t, because my first attempts taught me no one would buy it. And I swear, this world there, in my head, was shutting me completely down until I wrote it.
Is it the best thing since sliced bread? Well, husband thinks so. And before you say “Well–” no, that’s not a given. There are things of mine he doesn’t even read, and a lot of others he’s like “Well, that certainly was a book.” Some of my first readers seem to agree.
But the act of writing it has done amazing things for me, personally and enabled me to finally enjoy writing again.
So– Will you like it? I have no idea.
But I think we need to learn that if we don’t like it, we put it to the side of the plate and eat around it.
We’ve been in a position of defensiveness so long that we scrutinize everything for signs of “not being on the other side.”
It’s time to relax that. Look, most of the art on the other side isn’t even art. It’s just preaching and will turn you off anyway. Stop thinking they’ll sneakily get in your brain and convert you. I read an awful lot of communists growing up. Some were fun. Most were… communists and forgettable. But the art isn’t inherently trying to sell you a point of view. The good one will have some ideas leaked from the writer, but is other than that just a story (or art.) The bad one is preaching and not art.
Again, if it personally and outright offends you, set it to the side of the plate. But don’t go on a crusade for a purity spiral.
Recently I blocked someone on his first comment on this site. Now, part of the reason I blocked him was based on a misunderstanding. But afterwards, examining it, I still went “yeah, no. There’s at least one lie there, and the rest is some of that shivying towards a purity spiral, which sucks and which is out of place on a first comment on this site.”
The comment was that this person “borrowed all your books from the library.” I assumed he meant MY books apparently in error, since this was put on the Sunday book promo. Fans corrected me that he meant books I promo in the post. But “Come to a standing still and it takes me an hour to recover when I read the phrase “his husband” or “her wife” and I would like a warning at the beginning.”
I accused him of lying, because I don’t think I’ve ever used those phrases in my books. Yet. Though I make no promises. And since it struck me as utterly bizarre a comment, blocked him.
So, do I repent blocking him? No. Because you know what, he can’t be borrowing all the books I promo from the library unless by library he means KU, in which case he can get most of them. And because at the top of the promo post I say I don’t read all these books.
But mostly because what kind of candy-asses are we becoming if we need “trigger warnings” for those phrases?
I fully understand wanting trigger warnings for full on sex on screen (I only mention the word penis in one book ever, and it’s not sex as such. Well, it’s vampires.) I mean, no, I don’t understand it, but I’m willing to believe some people might need that. (I’m a child of the seventies, and stumbled on full on orgies in the middle of otherwise innocuous science fiction books, and the worst I did was flip past them because most written sex is boring and doesn’t advance the plot.) But needing trigger warnings for passing mentions of homosexual marriage, which already exists, and is likely to continue in the future at least in places (or at least as likely as to go away) is… weak. And dumb.
And hectoring other people about it is an attempt and stampeding people who are just realizing they can create whatever, and the boot of the left is starting to lift from their faces, into creating only one way and repeating only one message. WORSE into believing that ALL ART is message, and that’s all it is.
… That’s ultimately what creatively castrated the left, and demoted it from culture-bestriding colossus to… Echo chambers filled with resentment.
Let’s not go there.
Look, artists — I’m at 62, slowly, coming to accept this title for myself. Reluctantly — are strange people. We are moved by weird compulsions. (This week… making houses out of gourds, with pieces of pine cone for stone work. Perfectly normal for a sudden obsession, right? And thanks to Stephen for sending me the pine cones from the Missouri woods ;) ) and things we write and paint and create cannot be confined and cannot be interpreted as a “message.” There might be a message in there. There often is. Its relevance is likely to be “This is a fruit of its times.” And the message each of us finds in a book might be completely different.
But don’t start off an attempt at a cultural revolution (A real one, not the Maoist caricature) by forcing us to sing from the same hymnal and support the things you think we should believe (That’s the Maoist caricature cultural revolution.)
Let us be our weird selves. If we are pro-liberty this will leak in weird ways into the most unlikely pieces of work. And our questions, our prodding, our strange ideas and thought experiments will all contribute to liberty and the prosperity it engenders.
Demanding utter purity from your artists just makes people want to break the walls, even those that are holding up the ceiling.
And we all know how that ends.

























































































































