RDF/RSS Feed
Atom Feed
I mentioned here that I would be on the BBC World Radio’s “The Forum”…the taping of the panel discussion (with three people in London and me in Austin, TX) will be tomorrow (early morning, my time) and will be broadcast this coming Sunday, May 20. If your radio station doesn’t carry the program, you can access it as a podcast here:
From 01:00 Pacific Time on Saturday, http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/forum .
The lineup has changed a bit–the other panelists will be David Rodin and Elizabeth Quintana. Should be a very lively conversation. I’ve read one of David Rodin’s books now, but did not know Elizabeth Quintana had replaced the other panelist until yesterday. Luckily the BBC forwarded several of her publications for me to read.
One interesting discovery has been how differently I view some things as a fiction writer instead of an analyst or philosopher. (The “veteran” part comes in there too, but the fiction writer effect is stronger than I had anticipated.) The others’ concentration is on the “outside” of individuals–and mine, of course, is on the “inside”–on the way that individual biology, culture, and personal experience interact to create motivation for behavior.
Though this is technically off-topic for Paksworld, I felt it would be interesting enough to many here to give you a heads-up about it. (And let’s hope the edited version doesn’t have the font change that happened the first time around!)
Comment by elizabeth — May 15, 2012 @ 8:48 am
That was interesting–the text size changed without my intent. I’ll see if I can edit it.
Comment by Daniel Glover — May 15, 2012 @ 5:50 pm
Sounds like some good Sunday afternoon lounging listening–and it’s not so far removed from this blog where we are talking about an “end of the world” battle with the Iynisin. (Just to tie it back in. 😉 )
Comment by Ed B — May 15, 2012 @ 6:46 pm
I just checked on iTunes and noticed that there is a Podcast you can subscribe to from the BBC titled ” Forum- A World of Ideas”. Is this the same program?
Comment by Sam Barnett-Cormack — May 15, 2012 @ 6:59 pm
I think one of the most important messages we get from your books, in terms of warfare, is that the most important elements of it won’t change, are indeed pretty much invariant, as long as it relies on men and women to risk their lives in combat, and as long as it threatens the lives and livelihoods of those not theoretically fighting.
I’m a Quaker, so I’m a fairly strict pacifist, but I still have respect for people who choose to serve in the armed forces. While any good commander tries to preserve the life of their troops, and we see many examples of good commanders in your writing (Kieri being a key example), soldiers always risk their lives. The fundamental, human aspects of warfare won’t change as long as that remains the case, in my opinion.
I shall endeavour to catch the program – World Service is on a channel on free-to-air digital terrestrial, so I should be able to set my PVR to record it.
Comment by Sam Barnett-Cormack — May 15, 2012 @ 7:05 pm
The EPG entry for it describes the show as “World-renowned thinkers and their ideas”. 😀
Comment by Elizabeth D. — May 15, 2012 @ 8:52 pm
I am probably out of town and away from the internet this weekend (sigh). I hope that the BBC will allow people to listen to an archive of the broadcast, because it sounds very interesting.
You mention your point of view as a fiction writer, but there are many fiction writers that don’t get under the skin of their characters the way you do, or think about social or anthropological implications.
Many years ago I went to a seminar about the architecture of a space colony used for long voyages that would take years. The officers had room and a view, the underlings had small rooms far away from any conveniences they might need, with no hope of “moving up.” I pointed out that the ship would be a prescription for trouble. Many of the futurists fall in love with their beautiful drawings without considering implications. People might fight for food or water or something else; but the reasons always have something to do with the individuals involved.
Comment by Julia — May 16, 2012 @ 5:40 am
The Forum
BBC World Service
SynopsisProminent international thinkers debating big ideas.
Broadcasts
Sat 19 May 201223:05BBC World Service.
Sun 20 May 201202:05BBC World Service.
Sun 20 May 201212:05BBC World Service.
Times listed are BST which is 5 hours ahead of EDT if they mean summer time.
I have never tired to listen to World Service on line but will sometime before that. Right now I am listen to a history of the Chappel Royal.
Julia
Comment by elizabeth — May 16, 2012 @ 11:17 pm
Yeah, when I looked it up online, right after the invitation, that dropped my jaw to the floor.
Comment by elizabeth — May 16, 2012 @ 11:18 pm
Yes, it is. That’s the podcast I mentioned in this thread.
Comment by Moira — May 18, 2012 @ 4:33 am
Looking forward to it!
Comment by Moira — May 19, 2012 @ 5:03 pm
Just listened to the recorded broadcast – interesting stuff! And very enjoyable. Your punchline at the end was (dare I say it) epic, Elizabeth!
I won’t say more here, as I’m not sure you want us having an OT discussion (OT to the blog, not the thread), but thanks for a fun listen.
Comment by elizabeth — May 19, 2012 @ 5:45 pm
Moira: Glad you enjoyed the broadcast. I think all of us felt there was a lot more we wanted to say (I certainly had more!!) but everything has limits. I found the preparation for it as stimulating as the recording itself. One thing noticeable (as I was sitting there in the studio listening intently) was that the rather light-hearted tossing about of ideas that we do in the SFnal world goes “splat” against the glass wall between us and certain other types of people.
I think I’d rather you had a discussion on it somewhere else, not so much because it’s off-topic here as because I need to clear that discussion out of my mind while doing what I’m doing with the book…and if it’s here, I’ll be kibitzing as an evasion of work. At least this weekend, I need to have my nose firmly and painfully on the grindstone. NewEditor will be back from the Nebs on Monday, and I want to have a spiffy new version on her computer when she gets to work. (We exchanged emails last week, and though I don’t have the complete list of revisions, I asked about one specifically and also told her I was doing another polishing run, having found some…er…infelicities.)
Comment by Moira — May 19, 2012 @ 6:23 pm
@Elizabeth – yeah, I know what you mean with the “splat” factor. I’ve run into that in a very big way before now, in different circumstances. And yes, I’d imagine you were all champing at the bit (to use a felicitous analogy!) but everybody has to have their turn and the program’s only so long. Too bad.
Roger that on the elsewhere. 🙂 We wouldn’t want to interrupt your work too much, and you definitely want NewEditor to stay focused and engaged.
Comment by pjm — May 19, 2012 @ 11:14 pm
I downloaded the podcast (to save as an mp3 files) from http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/forum. They are available for a month. I grabbed a couple of the others, which I thought looked interesting as well.
I suppose you have to be a fantasy writer for a make-believe world to be work and stuff that is potentially about this world to be play. BTW that grindstone has sisters and cousins and aunts all over the place, but I am putting off renewing close acquaintance for a while. Lucky me!
Peter
Comment by Iphinome — May 20, 2012 @ 5:09 am
That was thought provoking.
Unfortunately that thought was I need to plot a rebellion and depose the Empress. The People’s Democratic Republic of Iphinomistan has a much nicer ring to it than The United Empire of Luna and Selene.
Comment by Richard — May 20, 2012 @ 10:58 am
@Iphinome: come your revolution, what are your plans for finishing Book V, Comrade President, may I ask?
Comment by Iphinome — May 20, 2012 @ 4:32 pm
@Richard Citizen author Moon will be placed under house arrest but allowed to request research materials from the peoples library. If the book is not completed on time I shall send chocolate and beg her to finish.
Comment by elizabeth — May 20, 2012 @ 7:22 pm
It would be a really stupid move to place me under house arrest.
Just sayin’.
All you have to do is promise me a lifetime supply of G&B’s 85% cocoa dark chocolate and let me wander the wild lands I need for background and more Paks books will come your way. If I really wanted power would I spend my days writing fantasy & SF? And running like a hare when the county chair thinks I should be a delegate to a higher level convention? No. Would much rather write books, knit socks, photograph wild flowers and any birds that hold still long enough.
But really tick me off and try to limit my life? You have then lost the sweet harmless fat old lady that I am by nature and uncovered something you don’t want (and an end to the writing of the Paks books.)
BTW, I hope those of you in cloudless climes where it occurred got to see the solar eclipse, partial or whole. (Wish I was where I could see the annular version. Ours was fun, though.)
Comment by Iphinome — May 20, 2012 @ 10:09 pm
Seemed the best way to avoid identity chips. But whatever gets both more Paks and no ID.
Comment by elizabeth — May 20, 2012 @ 11:18 pm
Good grief, did you think I was serious? They asked us all for wild ideas. Specified they needn’t be practical or even possible. They would choose one to be the 60 second wonder. I gave them several and figured the others would too–but they latched onto that one. Probably because it sounded so SFnal and shocking.
Reactions are not surprising.
Comment by Iphinome the always wrong — May 20, 2012 @ 11:44 pm
Did I think you were advocating barcode tattoos on infants? No. Did I think you were putting forth unchangeable universal access ID as a good idea, yes.
I clearly misunderstood as per usual. I’ll just show myself to the dungeons.
Comment by elizabeth — May 21, 2012 @ 6:24 am
There are no dungeons. You’ll just have to sit down to dinner in the great hall with the rest of us.
The assignment was to come up with an idea that would solve a problem and defend it in 60 seconds. The idea had to be relevant to the topic of the discussion and spark lively discussion. Having had other ideas ho-hummed over, and being asked for another, please, I tossed out this one and they liked it.
Any SFnal idea will have good points and bad ones, and I was well aware of the bad ones–but covering the downside was for the others to do, not me. And I could see the BBC’s point in picking this idea–my others would not have drawn such a strong reaction from the others (munitions that could be permanently deactivated when a military force left an area, so civilians years later wouldn’t be dealing with old land mines, old unexploded but still live shells and bombs, etc, was one of them. Who else on the panel would be leaping on the downside of that one?
Comment by Iphinome the always wrong — May 21, 2012 @ 7:54 am
Yes Lady, thank you Lady.
The time traveler’s guide to medieval England suggests that I surrender my sword. Do you require homage…. erm femage? Or entertainment? My latest filk is alas, unfinished, I haven’t quite captured the essence of Barranyi yet.
Comment by Moira — May 21, 2012 @ 8:39 am
Femage! LOL, I love it.
Have to confess, I also wasn’t aware that the idea part of the program was less than 100% serious… the presenter didn’t really convey that at all. I was thinking that in any society requiring the universal ID thing, I’d have to join the underground and be a rebel. Not because I’d want to do nefarious things, necessarily, but just on principle.
Shucks. Now I have to put away my rebel boots. 😉
Comment by elizabeth — May 21, 2012 @ 8:49 am
Iphinome: There are only a few rules for this castle banquet. 1) Don’t complain about the cooking unless you’re the cook. 2) Don’t step on the hounds’ tails and then complain about being bitten. 3) Don’t kill the person you’re having an argument with until you’ve both come to the Empress with the problem. (The Empress may execute both of you for Starting Needless Quarrels, but more likely will push up her glasses, pinch her nose and sigh heavily before assigning you different seats and forbidding a death match.)
Entertainment is auditioned by Svengali (my voice coach) and Kzinrret (a writer of my acquaintance who’s an experienced opera buff) and paid for; guests are not obliged (or in some cases, allowed) to sing.
Moira: I agree on the way the 60-second-idea was presented, but then they’ve been doing this and the regular audience probably does understand these are wild-eyed ideas. Two previous ones I had been told about clearly were impossible/impractical/infringing on personal freedom. (Not allowing people to take more than one picture a day, so they’d quit flooding the world with ill-conceived images. Forcing everyone to cover their parked cars with camouflage so rows of “ugly” cars wouldn’t detract from attractive buildings and the difficulty of covering/uncovering the cars would lead to less use of cars and more use of public transport.)
Comment by KarenH — May 21, 2012 @ 4:41 pm
Thank you for letting us know about the Forum. It was very interesting and thought provoking. And so was the lively discussion above.
If I was at the banquet, I would be one of those who are not allowed to sing. When my children were young, I was the lady in the pews who (when the boys weren’t singing the hymns) would tell them if they didn’t sing, I would sing louder to make up for them. They would immediately start singing.
The idea on the broadcast that really got me thinking was about disallowing the “only following orders” defense and the possibility of allowing enlistees to sign up for selected types of duties, like peacekeeping. It seems to me that it would be a real logistical nightmare.
Comment by elizabeth — May 21, 2012 @ 6:27 pm
I’ve read David Rodin’s book War and Self Defense, and find myself disagreeing with him on several points (one of them being his assumption–or apparent assumption–that all civilized people agree on what self-defense is.) Culturally, people not only don’t agree about whether a given engagement or war is just, but about what, in general, makes a war just. Rodin wants to change the existing “rules of war” (such as they are, and as little as they may be followed) for something he and many others think is more ethical…limiting wars to just wars by his definition, a very narrow one. And one that I think is inherently unworkable in real life. Of course, I could be wrong–but as the child of two engineers, I’m steeped in the culture of reality-based, practical thinking (even though I write SF and fantasy. Go figure.) A state of war between nations is not the same thing as a someone being attacked by a criminal. The pressures of war are not the same as those facing an individual being threatened by a robber.
Provisional service would indeed be a logistical nightmare, especially for a modern force. Elizabeth Quintana mentioned its financial burden–having to estimate and support a surplus so as to have enough force for any given action. You would think that the inability of nation states to easily agree on a joint operation would suggest the impracticality of it–and yet the thought is alluring, in terms of providing a soldier more freedom of choice. Yet again, the essence of military service is discipline–less freedom. And reducing militaries to those who want to go out and kill people–who are eager to find an enemy and close with it–makes them far more dangerous than militaries that contain a broad spectrum of the civilian population from which they come.
We did, in fact, disallow “only following orders” when I was in the military. We were all supposed to know what order were legal, and rather than carry out illegal orders (“Torture that person,” for example) we were expected to a) protest, and then b) refuse to carry out the order and take the consequences (which it was expected a later military court would adjudicate.) That principle had been established in the Nuremburg Trials after WWII. We were specifically taught about the Geneva Conventions on treatment of prisoners.
Comment by Richard — May 21, 2012 @ 7:05 pm
Elizabeth,
Seeing that you are posting here, I trust that you did get your nose sufficiently ground down (cf.#12), and have come up for some pain relief.
(#18’s BTW:) I saw a total eclipse once: the August 1999 one. It was supposed to be visible from Cornwall, but I played the weather-statistical odds and found myself a holiday to Lake Balaton in Hungary, where we had perfect viewing. The most remarkable thing was that during the two-and-a-half minutes of totality, the brightest thing in the sky, by far, was the sun – or rather its corona. It gave much more light than any full moon ever does. People, things and landscape all around remained recognisable. (Thinking about it, even without the corona I should have been expecting the day to go no darker than at dusk, a few minutes after sunset.) The sky was deep deep blue rather than black (no sunset colors that I remember). Just how many stars were out (especially away from the sun) I cannot now say. The best moment of all was the “diamond ring” when the first bit of sun proper re-emerged.
On the 60-second idea: well done both for coming up with it, and for your presentation and timing. Did you hear the presenter, just before, reading out listeners’ responses to the previous week’s one-shot-a-day camera idea? Of course yours was two ideas in one: unique names (or whatever), and instantly readable, irremovable name-tags. And only a step beyond the compulsorary id cards we nearly had imposed on us in the UK (by politicians maybe as much interested in controlling social security benefits as in anti-terrorism).
(#26) Karen, lets imagine a discussion between David Rodin (from the panel), Master Oakhallow and Kieri, about Paks’ situation when the Company was working for Alured. And Kieri’s own position then: is “I had to keep my word” any better an excuse for abetting war crimes than “I was only following orders”?
Comment by Daniel Glover — May 21, 2012 @ 7:24 pm
Elizabeth, Thank you, the BBC and your fellow panelist for a wonderful 45 minute intermission–and now back to our regularly scheduled programme (to use the English!). 😉
I did find it a jolly good row, and, having took my philosophy with doses of both ethics, metaphysics and logic, it’s not to difficult to imagine how an ethicist doesn’t always understand the difficulties, since having an ethos doesn’t mean one investigates one’s one underlying assumptions to that ethos much less whether those assumptions have a rational (logical) connection.
But, as I said, … now back to our regularly scheduled programme.
Comment by elizabeth — May 21, 2012 @ 10:40 pm
Richard: No, Kieri’s “I have to keep my word” is NOT any better than “I was told to.” And he knows it. In one sense he knew it at the time…he was like many of us who know, but don’t want to know…who have that uneasy feeling, that ethical discomfort, but don’t pull it up and look at it square on. Paks’s leaving made him do that. He pulled the Company out of Aarenis, went north and stayed north not just because the Regency Council jumped all over him when he got home, but because he was ashamed. He felt a responsibility to go back to Aarenis and fix things, and it was his first thought on hearing of the magelords in Kolobia–they could help.
Kieri is far from perfect–there were too many holes in his development for him not to be imperfect and flawed. He’s better now, but he’s still not perfect and won’t ever be. None of them are.
Comment by KarenH — May 22, 2012 @ 10:15 pm
Elizabeth, Thanks for the additional information about David Rodin.
(#28) Richard: I used the “only following orders” example, because I think that it was the example he used in the discussion on the Forum. David Rodin and Kieri would probably had a very lively and interesting discussion mostly talking past each other because of their different frame of references. I would imagine that it would be very frustrating for both parties. Master Oakhollow would not have approved of Kieri’s support of Allured and is not a fighter, but he would probably have a better understanding of human nature than David Rodin. He sort of reminds me of the Quakers.
Comment by Iphinome the always wrong — May 23, 2012 @ 2:11 am
Lady, it might be prudent to have your people make some phone calls and send out some emails.
It seems I was not the only one to get the wrong idea. Your idea has been slashdotted. http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/05/23/0156226/sci-fi-writer-elizabeth-moon-believes-everyone-should-be-chipped
I’m afraid the comments are unkind and often profanity laced.
Comment by Karen — May 23, 2012 @ 4:25 am
First, I would like to compliment you not only on the reason of your major comments but also on the fact that you got the last word!
Second, I’m not a Quaker, but my dad, of the same denomination I continue to follow, was a registered Conscientious Objector, meaning that, under the draft, his education and intellect were thrown out and he was trained to be a medic — until the degree of his color-blindness (he can’t tell the difference between wet army green and bloody army green), as well as a program he was shepharded into by a medic of my denomination sent him to D.C. to be an Army test rat.
So much for Prof.? Rodin’s ideas of ethics in combat.
Third, my denomination does focus on the book of Revelation, and frequently compares the ideas of war (and, after a few readings that allow you to get the elements that evoke Fantasy — not only with a capital F but also with a view to the earliest greats of SF/F) and the most confusing aspects of the text, I’m sorry that you were caught in the trap of suggesting something that invokes “The Mark of the Beast.” I happen to read those passages somewhat differently than I think your suggestion proposed (giving into evil is different to giving in to having a Social Security number, which many of my denomination suggested when the idea was first proposed). So, if as Iphinome suggests, and you are asked, I suggest that you study that section of Revelations — because there are many good responses to any possible charges against you.
Finally, I would like to comment on your knitting of socks. My dad kept his army socks until they were in rags (even with constant mending). Somehow, they fit his feet — and the old adage that an army marches on its feet resounded in his (not for normal work) footwear. To me, this fact kept popping up whenever anyone started talking about airborne attacks without pilots, or about ethics without anger.
I have always known that people fight because people fight (my unduly brief synopsis of your final comment). The other thing I know is that people will never be satisfied fighting unmanned aircraft, any more than my dad was satisfied wearing socks that didn’t fit when he needed to be active. It’s just a human thing.
So, good luck with the socks, and blessings on you if anyone struggles against the idea that you were encouraging that the Mark of the Beast should be enforced (the quick answer is that God already has us numbered and identified beyond any question — but I’ll leave it to your research skills, if you like that answer, to find the quotes and their context).
Comment by elizabeth — May 23, 2012 @ 6:54 am
Iphinome: You may be right, but I don’t have a clue what to do…I don’t have “people” in the sense I think you mean, or any idea what would “work”–if anything would. Basically, my entire background says if you’re getting slagged, you just hang in and live over it. Profanity–well, that’s the standard of internet discourse, along with piling on. Been through it before. The mob find something to rage about–could be anything–and rages until it moves on to something else. It’s not like others haven’t been targets (considering the trash thrown at Sandra Fluke, for instance.) And there’s the time factor…I have more work to do each day than I can get around. (If I sound tired, yeah. Been that way a long time.)
Comment by Maureen — May 23, 2012 @ 1:14 pm
What’s done is done, so there’s no point kicking yourself. Point people to your explanation of what the show producers instructed you to do.
Harlan Ellison has torqued off more people in a day than you’ve managed in your entire career (and that includes the whole Wiscon thing). Just keep writing and selling, and blow off the rest.
🙂 The Revelation tie-in might actually help, in a perverse way. People know that everything gets interpreted as being about Revelation, and that it ain’t necessarily so.
Comment by Moira — May 23, 2012 @ 1:28 pm
Good lord, some people need to get a life. And learn to read.
Elizabeth, I’m so sorry this has happened, especially since the Forum thing was a very fun thing until it did. But I have no doubt you’ll weather this and many other storms. As Willie Wagglestick said: “The better part of valour is discretion.” Nowhere more true than in this situation. And as I believe I’ve said before: nil illegitimus carborundum.
Comment by Daniel Glover — May 23, 2012 @ 2:29 pm
Sigh.
Comment by Iphinome the always wrong — May 23, 2012 @ 5:20 pm
By people I meant publicist and agent, someone who could drop an email to cmdrtaco somewhere between ‘It wasn’t serious dummy’ and ‘I’m sorry if my words offended anyone.’
They could also arrange a slashdot ask Elizabeth Moon. This soon, one of the 10 or so questions to make the cut would be about chipping people then you could type out a funny comment about silly people taking scifi ideas seriously.
Though now that I’ve seen Maureen’s suggestion, listen to her. Maureen == smart.
Comment by Moira — May 24, 2012 @ 1:22 am
Elizabeth – I see you’ve posted about the whole thang over on your LiveJournal site, with a full blow-by-blow explanation. May we point people to that post as a polite correction to their ignorant assumptions, or would you prefer not to draw their attention to your blog? (Lord knows, moderating comments is no way to spend anyone’s time, let alone someone who already has such full days. Or an eagerly anticipated book to finish. And we know which is a higher priority! ;))
Give us a yea / nay.
Comment by elizabeth — May 24, 2012 @ 8:50 am
It’s there for that purpose–go on and point them that way. Comments can always be shut off. Right now (unless LJ has done one of it’s “You changed something so we switches all the switches”, they’re all on screening.
Comment by Moira — May 24, 2012 @ 12:07 pm
Roger that, ma’am!
Comment by Moira — May 24, 2012 @ 2:02 pm
Good lord… it’s taken me this long to get the dang post done without it being wiped because I checked the Options before clicking Submit. May I just say that Slashdot sucks?
One interesting factoid: their User Account settings includes an option to list a Warcraft handle. I think that probably says it all.