Alexander Hellene's Blog, page 15

Ask A Christian, Part VI: No, Christ Wasn’t an Anti-Government Agitator Murdered by Police Brutality

[image error]

It’s Sunday, and I’m seeing more ridiculous and blasphemous shoehorning of Jesus Christ into political issues by people who hate Jesus Christ and God the Father who sent him, so I think it’s the perfect time for another installment of Ask A Christian. Because the world has seen too much of this guy as of late:

[image error]

It could be some moron of any political stripe, but if you’re honest with yourself, you know that in America, while not perfect Christians (because nobody is), the American political right is mostly Christian and the American political left is not only mostly not Christian, there is a large and vocal element that hates Christianity and Christians.

Don’t argue with me on this because it’s true. The four or five exceptions you can think about prove noting. It is as impossible to graft Christianity onto radical leftist reality-denying libertine communist politics as it is to Mammon-worshipping Austrian economic Ayn Randian/William Buckley-style “greed is good” conservatism. We’ll come back to this.

Anyway, here are some gross–and I do mean gross–misconceptions I’ve been seeing about Jesus Christ and His followers lately. They’re really stupid and really infuriating.

“Jesus was a brown-skinned Jew!”

First, look at this picture:

[image error]

Who do you think this is? If you said “Jesus,” you’re wrong.

A forensic anthropologist created a model, basically an artist’s interpretation, of what a typical Galilean might have looked like from an actual Galilean skull. It was not intended to be a recreation of Jesus, just a typical Galilean.

Don’t like though–you probably said “Jesus.”

Fact is, nobody knows exactly what Jesus looked like.[image error]

Fact is, Jesus probably wasn’t “brown-skinned” as low-IQ race-obsessed Americans conceptualize “brown skin.” I have basically the same skin tone as this image, maybe a hair darker . . . and when I’m in the sun a lot, I get a lot darker. And I neither Jewish nor Arab nor Hispanic nor any other kind of race we call “brown skin.”

[image error]

So this is just a stupid “own” by idiots who hate Christians because they assume all Christians are racist and:

(a) Don’t realize Jesus was a Galilean;

(b) Don’t understand He likely didn’t look like how he’s portrayed in a lot of Western iconography; and

(c) Would be somehow bothered by the fact that Jesus was a Jew of the Levant.

[image error]

Fact is, nobody seems to care exactly what Jesus looked like except for evil idiots who hate Him. So if you’re using this talking point to insult Christians, you’re just an asshole.

“Don’t you realize Jesus was an anti-Roman, anti-government rebel who was murdered by an opporsssive state for trying to being power to the people?”

Here’s an accurate representation of the kind of people who make statements like this:

[image error]

This is so unbearably moronic on so many levels, the people who say stuff like this are either really, really stupid, are liars, have never read the Bible, or are really, really stupid liars who have never read the Bible. Everyone from Internet progressives and atheist edgelords to libertarian and conservatives weenies to Christ-haters like Ben Shapiro parrot variations of this theme.

They’re all wrong, and they’re liars.

For starters, Christ cared little for the Roman occupation of what once was Israel. He has shockingly little to say about the Romans aside from Mark 12:17. Jesus was pretty cordial to the Romans He met, like the centurion whose servant He healed. Jesus said nothing about “freeing” the Jews, He said nothing about fighting Roman occupation, and He was not executed for being an anti-Roman rebel.

Jesus was not a criminal in the eyes of the Romans.

If anyone has actually read the Bible, they’d know that Roman governor Pontius Pilate did not want to execute Christ! Pilate tried everything–appeasing the Jews, having Herod deal with Him, beating the hell out of Him hoping that this punishment would appease the Jews.

But no. So finally, in order to avoid rioting from the contentious citizens of that occupied land, Pilate agreed to crucify Christ–at the Jews’ behest!–and then washed his hands of it . . . literally.

So, who was Jesus really against? His own people, the Jews! That’s right: Christ’s ire was directed at the corrupt chief priests and scribes of the Temple, the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Jesus Christ had nothing to do with politics, nor was he against “the state,” unless you consider the religious authorizes “the state.”

Ben Shapiro apparently does though, since he thinks Jesus Christ was just a criminal who got executed “for his troubles.”

“Don’t you think if He were here that Jesus would be marching with Black Lives Matter?”

No. He is the Son of God, and if He were here, we’d know.

I’ll indulge this idiocy for a moment though: no, Christ wouldn’t be involved in wanton violence and property damage. End of story. He’d probably tell all the rioters and all the cops to go home and pray to God for forgiveness of their sins.

Let’s go one step further though: Jesus would hate all American politics.

Seriously. Democrats are pro-abortion, so that’s a non-starter right there. But Republicans aren’t off the hook either, beside love of money is also a form of wickedness God most certainly does not love.

That’s just scratching the surface.

[image error]

He wouldn’t be Libertarian either, because Libertarianism’s satanic, Crowley-esque “Do what thou wilt” form of morality is antithetical to Christian teaching.

So we’re all out of luck.

The Bottom Line: Stop shoehorning Jesus Christ unto your awful politics, especially if you’re not even a Christian.

It’s very telling that anti-Christians still feel the need to wrap their awful decisions and life choices in the mantle of Christian morality, twisting and subverting Christ to make it seem like He totally approves of their vices and sin.

Almost as if they . . . fear His judgment.

The next time some dork tries this on you, administer the Witch Test.

Thanks to Brian Niemeier, we have a near foolproof way to see if your assailant is sincere or not. Simply demand that they confess that Jesus Christ is Lord and God the Father raised Him from the dead.

If they refuse or try to dodge by saying “That’s between me and God” or “Judge not lest you be judged,” you’ve got a witch on your hands and have no obligation to take them seriously or sincerely.

Unless you’re actually in favor of a Christian theocracy–which actually seems like it might beat the alternatives presented to us–keep Christ out of your awful, awful politics.

Lessons from a Master: What Reading Dan Simmons is Teaching Me

I’m three-quarters through The Fall of Hyperion by Dan Simmons–sequel to Hyperion and book 2 in the 4 book Hyperion Cantos series–and I can’t stop singing these books’ praises. I think so far I’ve convinced over ten people to give Hyperion a shot. 

[image error]

It has been a long time since I’ve found a novel or series that has engrossed me to this degree, particularly a sci-fi novel. I read mostly fantasy and thrillers/horror, and only reignited my love for sci-fi in the past five or six years. Simmons’ writing has been keeping me up at night, and I’ve even been having dreams about the worlds he’s created. What’s more, upon going to a new chapter or scene, I am yet to say to myself “Oh God, not this boring bunch of clowns.” Every single character, point of view, and setting is enthralling. 

The breadth of Simmons’ imagination and his staggering skill as a writer are undeniable, and bound to leave an impression. In thinking about these books as much as I have, I tried to crystallize exactly why The Hyperion Cantos are scratching an itch in such a way I haven’t experienced since I read Frank Herbert’s six-book Dune series some eight years ago.

Tone. Simmons writes like an adult, and it shows. The stakes facing the Hegemony of Man are high, the tension is palpable, and there is a constant sense of urgency. And yet despite this intense premise, the action, and the political machinations of the various factions, the books so far have never delved into the realms of nihilism and gray despair. There are different characters and different groups with conflicting interests and worldviews, but they’re all presented logically and, at the end of the day, you get the sense that the protagonists are struggling for a positive outcome.

Lesson: Snark is nearly instantly dated. Maturity is timeless. And conflict and GSU (Goals + Stakes + Urgency) are what propels a story, not the clever snappiness of your dialogue or how many F-bombs you can sneak in there. 

Characters. There are so many unique characters in these books, and Simmons has given each of them life. Each one behaves like an actual human being, and even when they make poor decisions, it is because of flaws in their worldview, the exigency of their situation, or their lack of adequate information and never for plot reasons. Further, Simmons never devolves his dialogue or narration into TV sitcom-level snark like in much modern fiction. The only real snarkbuckler, the poet Martin Silenus, is presented as an obnoxious and selfish jerk, not the Joss Whedon-esque totally super-smart and funny hero the way such characters are portrayed in the hands of lesser men. And yet, due to Simmons’ superlative skill, even Silenus is a sympathetic and likeable character. Truly astounding.

Lesson: Your characters don’t each need “a flaw.” What they each need is to be distinct from each other with their own motivations and goals. 

Understandable. Like I wrote in my review of Hyperion, the story is diegetic, meaning that we see an interior view of the story where details about the world are revealed by the characters and not by the narrator. The Hyperion Cantos feature tons of sci-fi elements, like farcaster portals (i.e., instantaneous interstellar travel), faster-than-light travel via hawking drives, time debt incurred due to interstellar travel, and lots other time-travel elements. There are humans who evolved differently, high technology, independent and near omniscient AIs, unfathomably deadly weapons, Time Tombs . . . and somehow Simmons makes it all understandable.

Lesson: Your worldbuilding matters only insofar as it pertains to the story and your readers know what the hell is going on. Otherwise, nobody cares about your uber-detailed magic system. 

Imagination. The Hyperion Cantos are serious works. They tackle philosophy, politics, war, and religion in mature, heavy, and always respectful and interesting ways. Yet the scope of Simmons’ imagination is stunning, and really sets these books apart from the “despair is realistic” crowd. Houses and government buildings where each room is on a different world thanks to farcasters . . . a sailing ship required to travel across an ocean-sized sea of grass . . . planets of giant trees, of endless seas, reconstructions of Earth cities or eras, where high gravity makes its citizens shorter, stocky, and strong . . . a colony of poets on a dangerous, distant world . . . the recreated consciousness of dead poets created by AIs and put into organic human bodies . . . humans who have evolved into human-animal hybrids . . . there is so much here, even little things, that make you realize Simmons has created a vision of the future that feels right out of some pulpy astonishing tales while remaining realistic enough to seem lived-in and, dare I say it, plausible.

Lesson: A mature, heavy, deep work does not by default have to skimp in the imagination and wonder departments. In fact, these two things help.

Sex. There are some relatively explicit sex scenes in Hyperion (I haven’t encountered any in The Fall of Hyperion). However, I did not find them gross or objectionable, even though I’m not generally a fan of such things in novels. First, they are neither gratuitous nor titillating. Second, they actually matter to the story (two characters in particular; I will say no more to avoid spoilers). Third, Simmions writes about sex, sexuality, and relationships in general like a grown man who has had deep, meaningful relationsihps and sex with actual women. I’m not trying to be flippant here; I’ve read quite a bit of just awful sex and romance stuff from big name published authors (I keep coming back to this book, but good Lord some of it is so, so awkward and bad) that Simmons’ handling of these topics sticks out like a beacon of light. In The Hyperion Cantos, the sex is never crude or vulgar. 

Lesson: Sex sells . . . but sex can detract. Unless you have a really deft hand at it, avoid the explicit stuff. 

Respect. Simmions writes about philosophy and religion in the way that they have been a part of human existence until fairly recently. In other words, people need some kind of overarching belief system, whether religious or secular, that is coherent and informs how they act and react to the world around them and their fellow man. Christianity exists as a nearly forgotten sect, and several of the main characters are Catholic priests. Islam also exists, as to Jews, although Judaism hasn’t been too present as a currently practiced faith, although Jewish history and Old Testament stories factor heavily in the narrative. Simmons has also made up his own religions that exist in this fictional world some 800 years into the future, and they’re utterly fascinating. There is the Shrike Cult, aka The Church of the Final Atonement; Zen Gnosticism; and my favorite, the Order of the Templars who live on the tree-covered world of God’s Grove, fly starships made from unfathomably large trees, and believe that mankind must be in harmony with nature. Although various factions disagree, and various characters disagree with various factions, Simmons never takes lame, faux-edgy, immersion-breaking potshots at any faith or philosophical bent. Contrast that with, once again, this book.

Lesson: If you want your characters and worlds to appear real, they have to have hallmarks of humanity. These include–like it or not, edgelords–religion as well as philosophy. And the best way to create this depth and believability is to not use your fiction a mask for your own prejudices against this worldview or that faith.

Dan Simmons is a master, these books are great, and I hope I explained exactly why I find that The Hyperion Cantos are so satisfying to me. These are the lessons I strive mightily to apply to my own writing. Sometimes the best way to improve your own craft is to read.

I do my best to put the lessons I learn from the masters into practice. Check out The Last Ancestor to see my praxis (how’s that for a fancy word?).

And the IndieGoGo crowdfunding campaign for Dreamers and Misfits is still going strong–contribute here!

Writing Non-Fiction Is Harder Than Writing Fiction

If the movie The Princess Bride is to be trusted–and it is–there are two classic blunders:

Never get involved in a land war in Asia; and
Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line.

I would add a third, and that is Never try to write a fiction and a non-fiction book at the same time.

I made this blunder when I decided to write a book about prog-rock legends Rush, Dreamers and Misfits, while finishing The Second Sojourn. Work on The Second Sojourn slowed down as I worked on Dreamers and Misfits. I reversed this to finish The Second Sojourn, and once that was shipped to my editor, I threw myself into Dreamers and Misfits. Now that I have The Second Sojourn back from my editor . . . I’ve let her edits sit there for about a month while I finish Dreamers and Misfits.

Let me tell you, writing non-fiction is hard. It is harder and more time-consuming than writing fiction. It’s fun and it’s rewarding, but it’s tough. It’s taking me back to grad school, actually, what with all the research and note-taking and . . . you know what? This is one of those instances where a list would suffice.

Research. The fun thing about non-fiction is that you can give your opinion. The time-consuming thing is that, if you want your opinions to have credibility, you need sources for many of your assertions. Not all, of course. Your opinion is your opinion, and the only citation you need is “My brain.” But sources to back up opinions, especially controversial or novel ones, help move them beyond the realm of speculation or hypothesizing and into the realm of cold, hard reality. And if you’re trying to write about stuff other people have said or done, or use ideas other people have already had, then you absolutely need citations . . . unless you’re cool with being regarded as either a liar or a plagiarist.

Videos. Research involves a lot of reading, but you can cut and paste reading if it’s online. Not so much with video interviews and documentaries. For these, unless you’re lucky enough to find a transcript, you need to listen over and over to make sure you’re transcribing it just right. It’s more of a pain in the neck than it sounds. 

Structure. Fiction requires structure, of course, but you can play around with it. Non-fiction is different. Non-fiction requires a logical, step-by-step, and some may say hand-holding structure as you guide the reader through your argument, first to your thesis statement or subject, and then through whatever information you use to convey that point, and finally to a conclusion. It sounds simple, but it’s not. In non-fiction, you are constructing an argument, which has a different flow than the narrative of a story. I mean, good non-fiction also tells a story, but you do not do it through dialogue and action. You do it through information and opinion. This is a different type of narrative which requires a different set of tools. Time-consuming tools.

Format. You need to cite things, and citing things requires consistency. Whatever citation style you choose–I prefer footnotes–use it exclusively. However, you want to get the citations right. This means making sure that, if you’re quoting something, you aren’t quoting Person A quoting what Person B said to Person C. You want to go as close to the source as you can. 

Tables and Graphs. Dreamers and Misfits makes extensive use of a Rush fan survey I made public back in February. I decided that, to show my work and provide interesting information to my readers, I would include selected portions of the survey results. Mind you, I had over 650 people respond. That’s a lot of information to edit and format in a way that is readable. By the way, Microsoft Excel is awful.

Interviews. I did two interviews–one with legendary former DJ and current professor and media historian Donna Halper (the woman who broke Rush in the United States) and one with Ed Stenger, proprietor of one of the biggest and best Rush blogs, RushIsABand.com. These take time to transcribe, or cost money if you use a transcription service. Rev is a good one. It’s a phone recording app that also transcribes your interviews for a modest fee. After transcribing my first interview by hand, I decided to take Rev up on their offer for the second, and I think that’s the way I’ll be going for the next few backer fan interviews I’ll have to do.

So there you have it. I have learned that writing non-fiction is difficult but incredibly fun, especially when it’s about a topic I’m passionate about . . . like Rush and their fans. I’ve also learned that I do not have the bandwidth to write two big books at the same time. Some people do, and that’s great. Some people don’t, and that’s the bucket I fall in.

Anyway, I’ll have this book done soon. Contribute to the IndieGoGo campaign here (we’re over halfway there!) and keep on rocking.

My fiction is also awesome, fun, and rewarding. If you like Rush, you’ll love The Last Ancestor. Buy it here!

New Indie Author Advice

[image error]

Reader Hardwicke Benthow asked some excellent questions about what a new indie author should do in the comments to a recent post, but instead of answering Mr. Benthow in the comments section, I think a separate post is more appropriate. I wanted to create a “Self-Publishing Checklist,” and will do so in the future, but for now I’ll answer Hardwicke’s questions to the best of my ability.

Hardwicke’s comment is below: 

This isn’t directly about the writing process itself, but I’ve been wondering what the best tactic is for a beginning self-published writer when it comes to anonymity or the lack thereof.

What got me thinking about this was this recent post by David Stewart:

https://dvspress.com/the-dangers-of-social-media-in-2020-what-you-need-to-know-as-a-creator-or-a-user/

In it, he advised, regarding social media, “Be anonymous if possible.”

During one of his YouTube livestreams, I asked him (via the chat) some questions about this, particularly whether it also applies to publishing. He said that if he had it to do over again, he would probably have published under a pen name, and briefly talked about the benefits of using a LLC to shield one’s identity when self-publishing.

I’m interested in your perspective on all of this, especially since you are both a self-published writer and a lawyer.

What would be your advice to someone who is in the beginning stages of becoming a self-published writer regarding the subjects of pen names and anonymity?

Under what circumstances is it best to use one’s real name, and under what circumstances is it best to hide behind a pen name and/or an LLC? What are the pros and cons of each in your view? And what about using one’s real name, but partially obscuring it by using initials for the first and middle names?

What about those situations in which one is not yet in a position (due to various reasons, such as financial ones) to obtain a LLC? Is it worth trying one’s luck at publishing without one? And if so, would it be best to publish under one’s real name, or under a pseudonym (possibly with the intention of later obtaining a LLC, hoping that no one has unmasked one’s secret identity before this is possible)?

If one has been careful to only ever engage in online discussion using a pseudonym, is it better to self-publish under one’s real name, or to come up with a second pseudonym and publish under it?

Is it best to use social media platforms (YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc) to promote one’s work, or to stick to a blog and nothing else?

I’ll go through each question in turn and hopefully provide some useful insight to anyone deciding to be an independent, self-publishing author in the Year of Our Lord 2020. And let me state that NOTHING IN THIS POST CREATES AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP, NOR IS THIS CONSIDERED LEGAL ADVICE. THE INFORMATION IN THIS POST IS HYPOTHETICAL AND/OR FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY. ANYONE READING THIS POST ASSUMES ANY AND ALL RISK FOR THEIR OWN DECISIONS WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE BASED ON ANYTHING CONTAINED IN THIS POST.

What would be your advice to someone who is in the beginning stages of becoming a self-published writer regarding the subjects of pen names and anonymity? 

I strongly suggest using a pen name. I use a pen name myself. I also strongly suggest remaining anonymous and self-doxxing as little as possible. Like David V. Sterwart, whose excellent post Hardwick referenced in his comment, I began my life as an author with the legacy understanding of social media. We are in a brave new world now where you WILL be made to suffer for wrongthink. As such, anything you can do to protect you, your family, and your livelihood is smart. 

I show my face and some details of my life, not for the sake of being an exhibitionist, but because I had thought, and read advice to this point some years ago, that you need to build a connection with your audience to really make them interested in reading what you have to write. Has this worked? I can’t say because I really don’t have anything to compare it to. I know that, for example, Brian Niemeier reveals his name and nothing else about his life or his physical appearance, and he is very successful. On the other hand, Jon Del Arroz is very open about his life and he is also very successful. So the best answer is the level of risk you are comfortable exposing yourself to.

Under what circumstances is it best to use one’s real name, and under what circumstances is it best to hide behind a pen name and/or an LLC? What are the pros and cons of each in your view? And what about using one’s real name, but partially obscuring it by using initials for the first and middle names?

This answer is similar to the previous one, but here’s a good rule of thumb: IF YOU ARE RELIANT ON OTHER PEOPLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH YOUR PAYCHECK, USE A PEN NAME AND BE ANONYMOUS. In the alternative to this, you could also just never engage in discussion or reposting of any political content. This requires discipline, but it can be done. 

As far as LLCs go, their primary benefit is to shield you from personal liability for anything; only business assets can be seized via court judgment, etc., except in very extreme circumstances. However, LLCs cost money to set up, anywhere between $500 and $1,000 dollars depending on your state, and there are annual filing fees of several hundred dollars per year ato maintain your LLC. So for someone starting out, the chances that a self-publishing fiction author will say or do something related to writing and publishing that can get them into legal trouble is pretty small, so again, it all depends on your risk appetite. 

What about those situations in which one is not yet in a position (due to various reasons, such as financial ones) to obtain a LLC? Is it worth trying one’s luck at publishing without one? And if so, would it be best to publish under one’s real name, or under a pseudonym (possibly with the intention of later obtaining a LLC, hoping that no one has unmasked one’s secret identity before this is possible)?

See above, with two additional points. First, .  The use of authorial pen names has a long and noble history, and these days has the added benefit of keeping your real life separate from your online life. 

Second, publishing without an LLC set up in no way precludes your ability to establish an LLC later. 

Regardless, this is a great time to be a self-published indie author: https://amatopia.wordpress.com/2020/06/16/its-so-hard-or-your-competition-has-never-been-weaker/

If one has been careful to only ever engage in online discussion using a pseudonym, is it better to self-publish under one’s real name, or to come up with a second pseudonym and publish under it?

This is all up to personal preference. It depends on how linked or separate you want each sphere of your online existence to be. Are you a politics guy? If your political following is into fiction, maybe they’re good people to market to and will spread the word about your work. If not, then maybe a secondary pen name is the way to go. There’s no easy answer here. In my case, I came onto social media and all of that with the intention of writing and publishing, and as such I try my damndest to keep the political talk to a minimum . . . but since I find the macro cultural issues as well as my religion so fascinating, and since those bleed into my writing, I talk and blog about these things from time to time. That said, I’m careful about it, and increasingly more so in today’s climate. But at the same time, if you ARE attacked, doxxed, etc., you have to fight back. Lawfare works. 

Read these posts:

https://amatopia.wordpress.com/2018/05/16/keeping-your-job-in-a-knee-jerk-world/ 


https://amatopia.wordpress.com/2018/07/24/dont-be-a-casualty/ 

Is it best to use social media platforms (YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc) to promote one’s work, or to stick to a blog and nothing else?  

I contend that you need a blog as a writer. Read this post: https://amatopia.wordpress.com/2020/04/26/why-you-need-a-blog-if-youre-an-author/. That said, I deleted my first Twitter account before my first book was published, sold like garbage, and only started to sell books when I got back on Twitter. So I recommend Twitter, though other indie authors say otherwise. The fact of the matter is that, indie or tradpub, YOU HAVE TO DO YOUR OWN MARKETING. No one will do it for you. And in order to do that, you go where the people are. And lots of people are online.

I found Facebook and Instagram utterly useless in selling books. The blog has been helpful though, and the blog gives you your own place on the web for people to find you, to promote your work, and provide value for free to entice others to pay money for your writing. I recommend at a minimum a blog and a Twitter account. I also recommend running crowdfunding campaigns after you’ve published a book or two in order to both fund your writing and truly gauge audience interest. As Brian Niemeier is fond of saying, neo-patronage is the future. 

So there you go. I hope that these have been useful for everybody. Stay tuned for more, and always feel free to ask me questions like these. If I can inspire anybody, the way other authors like Rawle Nyanzi, Brian Niemeier, Jon Del Arroz, David V. Stewart, and Adam Lane Smith inspired me to write and publish, I’ll consider this entire blogging endeavor a success.

See the fruits of my own writing, marketing, and networking labor by buying one of my novels: The Last Ancestor is awesome–and don’t take my word for it; here’s Jon Del Arroz’s review–and a good place to start since I’ll be releasing Book II later this year.

And don’t forget that my IndieGoGo campaign for Dreamers and Misfits: The Definitive Book About Rush FANS, is still live and over 50 percent funded. Let’s push this over the finish line!

Book Review: Hyperion by Dan Simmons

[image error]

Every so often I read a sci-fi novel that makes me rethink the genre and what it can do. Dune was one. A Princess of Mars was another. Hyperion is a third.

In the far future, humanity is spread into the cosmos, colonizing planets linked by teleporters called Farcasters–this is called the Web and it is run by the Hegemony of Man. High technology reigns, enabled by the AIs who run a virtual world of information called the TechnoCore.

Centuries ago, the AI seceded from humanity to live a separate existence, but still aids humans via technology, information sharing on the datumsphere–basically the Internet–and advising on important matters by using its predictive powers and algorithms. Additionally, every human has a comlog, a wearable biometric device, and several have neural shunts for direct access to the datumsphere. They weren’t enough to save Old Earth from being destroyed by a subterranean black hole a few centuries back, but they’ve proven to be friendly, albeit inscrutable, allies.

And then there’s the planet of Hyperion.

A backwater world outside of the Web–that is, not linked by Farcaster–and even outside of the Protectorate–worlds next in line for Web-status–Hyperion is in the Outback, and is a wildcard that stymies the AIs predictive abilities.

It is also home to the Time Tombs, huge structures like a Sphinx and an Obelisk and a Crystal Tower that are moving backwards through time. The Tombs release an anti-entropic field that flares up from time to time.

However, more dangerous than that, in the Valley of the Time Tombs there lives a creature called the Shrike, a three-meter tall, four-armed, red-eyed metal being covered in thorns and spikes. It appears where he will in the Valley, and few who see it live.

[image error]

And now, with the Hegemony being invaded by the hostile Ousters, humans who left the Hegemony nearly a millennium ago, the Shrike is starting to range outside of the Valley.

A cult has built up around the Shrike over the centuries, and they conduct pilgrimaged to the Valley, always seven at a time. It is said the Shrike will grant one pilgrim a wish and impale the rest upon its tree of pain.

In this mix, the TechnoCore advises Hegemony CEO Meina Gladstone about seven individuals who should be selected to go on the pilgrimage despite the war, as one of them may hold the key to saving humanity.

But the Time Tombs are slowly opening, that is, coming into phase with the present flow of time. And nobody knows what will happen when that occurs . . . not even the TechnoCore

[image error]Dan Simmons

There’s a lot going on in Hyperion, but Simmons handles it deftly. The storytelling is diegetic, so expect some confusion the first few chapters until you read on and begin to understand the word. But Simmons is such an evocative writer with a minimum of words, you won’t mind. Simmons is not flowery, but economical; he chooses the perfect words and creates a certain type of poetry with his prose, crafting some passages of heartbreaking poignancy.

He also does a lot “wrong,” treating Hyperion–book one in his four-part series–like Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, interspersing they seven pilgrims’ trip with each telling their story of their prior experience with Hyperion and the Shrike.

Criticisms on this basis are wrong. The flashbacks work as Simmons slowly unravels the mystery and reveals why each pilgrim is there.

They are Het Mesteen, a Templar from the world of God’s Grove, True Voice of the Tree, whose treeship Yggdrasil is war brought the seven to Hyperion . . . the Consul, former Hegemony representative on Hyperion and harboring a secret family history . . . Brawne Lamia, a private eye from Lusus whose former lover, a cybrid with the reconstructed personality of poet John Keats, was wanted by the TechnoCore, and granted refuge by the Shrike Church . . . Colonel Fedmahn Kassad, war hero of FORCE, the Hegemony’s military, who seeks out the Shrike to confront it . . . the poet Martin Silenus who lived on Hyperion long ago in the artists’ city created by an exiled king, and for whom the Shrike is his muse . . . Father Lenar Hoyt, a Catholic priest from the world of Pacem, who came to Hyperion earlier to seek a colleague in self-imposed exile . . . and scholar Sol Weintraub, a professor from Barnard’s World, whose daughter Rachel was a researcher of the Time Tombs when a meeting with the Shrike caused her to age backwards every day; Sol, compelled by disturbing dreams, has brought baby Rachel on the pilgrimage with him . . .

. . . and one of them is an Ouster spy.

[image error]Art by Aleksandar Obradd

There is so much packed into Hyperion. It’s like a less dense Dune, touching on religion, politics, and philosophy but keeping plenty of sci-fi action and adventure; what I call the “space stuff.”

It’s so imaginative too–houses where each room spans worlds via Farcaster; strange and beautifulw planets; the concept of “time debt” as a result of space travel.

And that cover by Gary Ruddell is perfect. I bought the paperback just for that.

Hyperion is a must-read for any fan of sci-fi old and new. Simmons has crafted a serious and engaging work light-years beyond the third-hand and third-rate fluff that passes for sci-fi nowadays. This book will reinvigorate your love for the genre. We need more writers of gravitas, intellect, and skill like Simmons.

The cover to Hyperion was one of the inspirations for the cover to The Last Ancestor, both in font style and the fact that it actually depicts stuff from the book. No generic covers here! Buy it on Amazon.

The Sea Is In My Blood

[image error]

I did not grow up on the ocean, but I grew up going to the ocean.

Every summer since before I can remember, my family drive up to Maine where my grandparents bought a small cottage on the water back when my mother was a baby. Purchased when property values were low and development was sparse, their little cottage sits directly across the street from the beach.

This cottage is where I took my first steps to my great-grandmother who died shortly thereafter. It’s where I stayed the summer I was 13 when I had my very first summer job scooping ice cream and washing dishes at the same general store my mother, aunt, brother, and later cousin worked at.

But most importantly, it’s where I learned to love the ocean. The salt spray on my face. The tang of the sea in the air. The feel of the chilly New England water, so cold you feel it in your bones but so welcome on a hot day. Fishing, playing in the sand, heading into town for seafood or to play at the arcade in the old boardwalk. Fireworks. Ice cream. Lighthouses. And most of all, the sensation that God’s creation is vaster than anything you can comprehend.

Looking out at the sea, the endless horizon, wondering what would happen if you got in a boat and just sailed east . . . reading fantasy novels or Moby Dick or playing my Game Boy and imagining sea creatures . . . sitting on a lifeguard stand at dusk and listening to music . . . the ocean still captures my imagination.

We went to the beach over the Fourth of July weekend, a different beach; this time, one in Rhode Island and not Maine. Thanks to the coronavirus and the quarantine rules of Vacationland, my grandparents’ cottage is still boarded up for the winter. We didn’t make it last year either, so this is two summers in a row we did not get up to Maine.

[image error]

But regardless of where I am, once I set foot in the ocean I am eight years old again, imagining myself a seafaring knight fighting battles on the high seas . . . I am ten, a wandering adventurer seeking fame and fortune . . . thirteen, wishing I had a summer romance like the older kids I saw . . . sixteen, wishing I had a band that could play around a bonfire on the beach . . .

I don’t live on the water, but I’m close enough that the ocean is never more than 90 minutes away.

My grandfather grew up on an island in Greece, so the sea is in him. My mother and aunt grew up always going to the water, so the same with them. And I suppose with me as well.

Postscript: Another hidden bonus of getting away for a while: you get off the internet and go along real, actual Americans and you realize the chaos and division you see is largely localized in several major cities and is whipped up by professional Marxist agitators with a nefarious and satanic agenda. Regular Americans are content to enjoy life and enjoy each other’s company. It’s a beautiful thing, and the lesson of the day is: don’t trust the media.

Adventurous sword-and-planet meets a coming-of-age story of a young hero and his alien best friend who defy a hostile monarch to save the last remnants of Christendom from destruction. You’ll love it–buy it here!

And don’t forget to kick in on the Dreamers and Misfits crowdfunding campaign!

Memory Eternal

[image error]Years pass and wounds heal and sorrow somewhat loses its sting. But even given time’s march and the knowledge that you will see the departed once again, the anniversary of a loved one’s passing is always a somber affair, especially when they fall asleep before their time.

It’s not that life is cruel–diseases are cruel. It’s not that life isn’t fair–it’s a fallen world so unfairness is to be expected. It’s that we are selfish creatures and until we face our own end, we never realize how short life is. And how important.

Never forget those who moved on before you, even though it hurts. We all still miss her.

Dreamers and Misfits IndieGoGo is LIVE

My crowdfunding campaign for Dreamers and Misfits, the definitive book about Rush FANS, is live!

Back here!

The book is done! I am trying to cover production costs and make sure the book has a spectacular cover and design. Jessie White is tapped for the cover art and a Manuel Guzman for interior illustrations . . . if I meet my goal.

I have great perks too–YOU have a chance to be IN the book!

Check it out. I guarantee all Rush fans will like this book, and if half the people who completed my survey just pitches in $10, or if everyone who did tosses in $5, I’d hit the goal in a heartbeat.

It’s a lot of fun and I can’t wait to get this book into everyone’s hands. Thanks so much for your support!

I also wrote science-fiction. Highly regarded science-fiction, as befits a Rush fan. Buy it here!

Write, Dammit!: Another Excerpt from An Unpublished Guide to Writing by Alexander Hellene

[image error]

Chapter II: WHAT TO WRITE

Before writing, you need something to write about. This is axiomatic, and almost doesn’t need to be said, except for the fact that there are an infinite amount of things to write about. And infinity is a pretty big concept. Therefore, infinity needs to be narrowed down. Unfortunately, this can lead to another phenomenon called analysis paralysis: too many choices can make one freeze in the throes of indecision.

An important thing to note: You can’t spell “analysis” without “anal.” I am not being merely scatological here. Anal-retentiveness is an actual concept, as distasteful as the name may be, that has its origins in Freudian psychology. Not being an expert in Freudian psychology, or any other kind, I am not going to delve into the origins of this concept, and will instead move to its popular definitions.

According to Merriam-Webster’s dictionary, anal-retentiveness (“Anal” for short”) is “often used in nontechnical contexts to describe someone as extremely or excessively neat, careful, or precise.” Our friend Google puts it as “a person who is excessively orderly and fussy.” I want to keep this book as classy and family friendly as possible, so let’s leave it at that.

Whichever definition of anal you subscribe to, the upshot is that analysis paralysis will keep you from writing. And remember the main philosophical axiom of this book: One who writes is a writer. One who does not write is not a writer.

My advice to overcome analysis paralysis when it comes to what to write about is to write the first thing that comes into your head. For some people, who plan and outline ahead of writing, this seems like strange advice. But writing the first thing that comes into your head can also help in the planning and outlining phase.

What genre should you write in? Just stop and think for a minute. What comes to mind? A dog in a spacesuit running away from gigantic squids pouring out of a nebula in deep space? Start writing about that. It doesn’t matter if it’s awful, and it doesn’t matter if you end up scrapping that idea later. And why might you scrap this idea later?

Because in writing your hypothetical astro-canine-fleeing-interstellar-cephalopod tale, you might have thought of something better.

If you thought to yourself, “He just described a warm-up!” then give yourself a pat on the back because that’s right.

In Chapter III, I describe method for getting started with this, but I would like to point out that while planning is a perfectly valid way to construct a story, there is such a thing as excessive planning (see Chapter VII), and that too much attachment to your story can also weigh down your ability to write (see Chapter XIX). And lastly, excessive anality will keep one from finishing what one is writing (see Chapter XLII).

I sincerely hope this helps, and I guarantee you will never think of analysis paralysis the same way after this.

“Hellene has a masterpiece on his hands.”

Book Review: The Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn: Part One: “The Prison Industry,” Chapter Eleven, “The Supreme Measure”

Capital punishment has been a hotly debated legal remedy in justice systmes dating from Hammurabi nearly 4,000 years ago to present-day Western liberal democracies. It is no surprise, then, that even the Soviet Union’s position on the death penalty changed through the course of its existence.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, of course, did not know that the USSR would fall in his lifetime when he wrote The Gulag Archipelago. What he did know is that the Soviet regime had a penchant both for changing its mind about laws, using confusing terms to obfuscate the true meaning and intent behind legislation, and in general had many, many ways to get rid of those it perceived as enemies.

FIrst, Solzhenitsyn details a brief history of capital punishment in Russia, beginning with Tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich Romanov in the mid-17th century to his own era, concluding that the longest spell Russia ever had without capital punishment was during the reign of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna (1741-1762). The Bolsheviks, for their part, had a funny habit of abolishing and then reinstituting the death penalty whenever it suited their needs. But stuff like that only happens in an authoritarian dictatorship, and never in a liberal Western democracy, right?

[image error]Empress Elizabeth Petrovna

Another thing that totally never happens in liberal Western democracies is euphemisms for laws. For example, at one point the Soviet regime decided to call capital punishment “the supreme measure,” and decided that it was not punishment, but a “social defense.” Until it was decided that the death penalty was a punishment again. And the list of crimes for which death was the penalty steadily increased. “But all of this is simply temporary,” Solzhenitsyn bitterly notes, “until complete abolition. And that’s how it’s described today too.”

So what are the figures, then? How many people had the Soviet regime executed since the Revolution? I’ll just give a taste, since the numbers are mind-boggling: between 1937 and 1938, the best Solzhenitsyn can tell is nearly 1,000,000. 

Yet to this day, Stalin and the USSR in general have their defenders. These numbers are overreported! These numbers are propaganda! Stalin purged lots of horrible people and made Russia a better place to live! Solzhenitsyn just had a personal axe to grind!

Given that any of these statements may be true, does that excuse the millions of innocent lives caught up in the meat-grinder?

After Solzhenitsyn’s introduction, he gets into the mindset of the condemned man as he faces the improbable, implacable, and unbeatable brunt of the machine:

In our happy, blind existence, we picture condemned men as a few ill-fated, solitary individuals. We instinctively believe that we could never end up on death row, that it would take an outstanding career if not heinous guilt for that to happen. A great deal has still to be shaken up inside our heads for us to get the real picture: a mass of the most ordinary, average, gray people have languished in death cells for the most ordinary, everyday misdemeanors . . . 

…

Whether our destiny holds a death cell in store for us is not determined by what we have done or not done. It is determined by the turn of a great wheel and the thrust of powerful external circumstances.

An example of these circumstances came during the siege of Leningrad in World War II. Imagine you are the highest ranking leader at the time, Andrei Alexandrovich Zhdanov. Imagine that, after the siege, you are hauled before your superiors and asked why, if Stalin uncovered plots in 1919 during a similarly difficult time, how come YOU didn’t in 1942? So you round up an engineer in the middle of the night–let’s call him Ignatovsky–and accuse him of all sorts of horrible crimes. Of course he’ll talk and name names!

[image error]Andrei Zhdanov

So what do you do in a death cell? What’s it like? Since so few come back to tell us after their execution, Solzhenitsyn pieces it together as best he can from those who did survive via having their sentences commuted to a long time in prison or the Gulag, and even from executioners and interrogators themselves.

The Organs were well aware of the terror that being on death row created. Every turn of the cramped, overstuffed cell’s lock brought fresh terror among the prisoners . . . only for the guard to bark at some ungodly hour some frivolous order, like move that stuff from here to there, or as in one example Solzhenitsyn gives, to take things off of the window sill. Cold, overcrowded cells, hunger, and a lack of medical attention–after all, why patch up those who were about to die?

But if they were about to die, why were so many kept in their cells for months or years? Didn’t the meat-grinder work faster than that? The reasons for this, Solzhenitsyn tells us, are quite sickening and demonstrate the tension between two different groups–the interrogatory and judicial apparatus, and the prison administration. After the chosen criminals had been condemned, their sentences entered into the official record, and then duly imprisoned, the judicial apparatus lost interest. Their job was done, and the death row inmates became the problem of the jailers.  “And that administration,” according to Solzhenintsyn, “which was closely associated with Gulag, looked at prisoners from the economic point of view. To them the important figures were not an increase in the number of executions but an increase in the manpower sent out to the Archipelago.”

Why do inmates allow themselves to be executed, Solzhenitsyn wonders. If they’re going to be killed anyway, why not resist? Why not try to overpower the guard when he comes in, as he gives examples of having happened before. Is the real culprit as to why death row inmates in the USSR meekly waited for their slaughter hope? After all, many of these men sent petitions for appeal and reconsideration of their death sentences. And some of them had been granted in the past. Maybe this time theirs would be? One never knew, after all.

Does hope lend strength or does it weaken a man? If the condemned men in every cell had ganged up on the executioners as they came in and choked them, wouldn’t this have ended the executions sooner than appeals to the All-Russian Central Executive Committee? When one is already on the edge of the grave, why not resist?

But wasn’t everything foredoomed anyway, from the moment of arrest? Yet all the arrested crawled along the path of hope on their knees, as if their legs had been amputated.

This is a bit unfair, and easy for Solzhenitsyn to say as he was never in this position, but it’s a powerful point nonetheless. Violence works, as we’re seeing in the United States today. To get what you want, you have to scare the shit out of your enemy and make them fear brutal physical pain and death . . . and deliver on those threats often enough to make the other side reconsider. But many men, even condemned men, have families they love and want to see again. So anything that may give them this hope will stay their hand. I find this utterly understandable and not worth condemning these already dead men for.

Sometimes resistance or a show of anger works, though, and in this chapter Solzhenitsyn reveals what happened to our friend Vlasov, last seen in the Kady show trial described in Chapter Ten. He was not shot. He was not hanged. His forty-one days of waiting to be shot had finally got to him and when a particularly poncy Soviet official named Chinguli came to the cell Vlasov was in to ask who there had been involved in the Kady affair, the irascible Vlasov stood up and yelled “What kind of colonial officer is this? Get out of here, you murderer!” And spat in Chinguli’s face.

His sentence was commuted to twenty years in prison and five years of disenfranchisement.

A reasonable rabbit ought not to behave in that fashion . . . But there is a limit, and beyond it one is no longer willing, one finds it too respulsive, to be a reasonable little rabbit. And that is the limit beyond which rabbits are enlightened by the common understanding that all rabbits are foredoomed to become only meat and pelts, and that at best, therefore, one can gain only a postponement of death and not life in any case. That is when one wants to shout: “Curse you, hurry up and shoot!”

His sentence commuted, Vlasov is said to have wondered if the supreme measure would still be needed after his twenty years were up, no doubt wryly commenting on the fact that, at this rate, there’ll be so few people left alive in the Soviet Union that to execute any more would make the whole system collapse. “At the time,” says Solzhenitsyn, “it seemed quite inconceivable: after twenty years. Strangely, they were still needed even after thirty.”

Takeaways:

All regimes use laws and the naming of laws to hide their true meaning and purpose: the PATRIOT Act, the Affordable Care Act, and so on.
Capital punishment, and any form of justice, really, not swiftly and failry administared, becomes yet another instrument of state torture and terror, psychological as well as physical. 
It’s been said before, but it bears repeating until every single man, woman, and child in the United States understands it: if the regime wants you to be a criminal, you will be made into a criminal.
Uncertainty and unpredictability before the law is the death of a functional civilization that respects its citizens. If the ruling class hates you and your kind, there is a different set of laws that operates for you. Double standards are the only standards of a failed state, and are a good tell that your state is in the process of collapse; it doesn’t matter how long such a collapse lasts because such a system is unsustainable.
It is easy to say that those with nothing to lose should lash out and not accept their fate, but those with a lot to lose–and hope to maybe see their families and loved ones again–often think differently. As it is impossible for us to know what we would do unless we are in that situation ourselves, the condemned deserve our sympathy, not our scorn. 
At the end of the day, violence is the only thing that speaks the language your oppressors will understand. This applies to all identity groups, ever, throughout the course of human history. Ignore the efficacy of violence at your own peril.