Oblomovka

2009-10-22»

I’ve been laid low by illness. It’s not amenable to naming: I have a fever, but no coughs or sneezes. Headaches, otheraches. I’ve mostly been sleeping, and when I’m not asleep, I’ve been restless and yet exhausted, stuck in my apartment. A lot of my friends caught something similar, and it’s mostly taken them a week to shake it off. I didn’t even have the energy to make it to tonight’s EFF Pioneer Awards ceremony (boo! I wanted to see Limor “Adafruit” Fried and Carl Malamud win!).

What have I been doing, when not being ill? Well, possibly the maximally interesting thing for you, dear vicarious reader, was attending Ephemerisle, a sort-of-Burning-Man-like event for people who, instead of frying in deserts, prefer to drown in rivers.

There’s plenty of pictures and coverage of Ephemerisle now, I think perhaps because the event pulled 10% of the “novel strange east coast geek culture” press pool (me, Declan McCullough, Brian Doherty), and 60% of the “sympathetic portrayals of weird libertarianism” press pool (Declan McCullough, Brian Doherty, me).

My favourite review was from “postmodern conservative” Will Wilson, who said “most of the participants could best be described as left-libertarian… Curiously, most of the people I interviewed were under the impression that everybody else was a right-libertarian.” He also complained that it was “creepily non-political”, which must indeed look very suspicious indeed to DC conservatives visiting California. First they don’t talk about politics, and the next thing you know they are offering to re-orient your chakra.

Far more interesting to me, who has attended several Burning Men, but never actually got around to visiting a 1970s L5 Society meetup was the conference before the island. I’m afraid I’m weakening from the ague far too much to tell you about that now, though, so I’ll leave you with this footage of my daughter riding around in a bubble. To the future!

Read the rest of this entry »

Comments Off on my diseased mind; ephemerisle

2009-07-14»

I’m giving my “Living on the Edge” talk next week at OSCON. I keep telling myself it will be the same as last year’s OpenTech presentation (I pitched it to O’Reilly as “the same talk, with some of the jokes in a different order”), but of course a year has passed, and someone will launch something on Monday, and I will have to re-write it all three times, and change “Ruby” to “Haskell” in the topical jokes.

The highlight from last year’s talk was being constructively heckled by e-money expert David Birch (I believe I idly posited the switch to the Euro as the sort of centralised, high-co-ordination venture that I, out of a foolish consistency, believe can never succeed, and yet regularly do. He yelled that actually it hadn’t. My other example is Unicode, which only today I discovered has some issues of its own.)

I read David now because I can never accurately predict his opinion, which means either it’s all signal, or he is in fact a natural source of randomness, both of which are highly valuable. Here is his latest piece on the history of credit card fraud, which posits that given that everyone knows that credit cards are nigh un-protectable, it’s time we came up with something better.

That’s not a new viewpoint, but he makes a novel (to me) point. Fraud is a few points of cost for retailers and banks, which they are generally okay to swallow, but because fraud is now more scalable, those few points — which round up to billions when taken nationally or globally — have become a public order, organized crime, issue. (Not sure if I entirely believe this yet, but that doesn’t stop it being interesting). Some other nuggets are Paypal’s counterintuitively low fraud rate compared to traditional payment systems, and a link to a fantastic piece by Stephen Wilson summarizing the reasons why credit card security is lousy, and why organizations use all the wrong private data on you to confirm who you are. Quoting from Wilson’s list of personal data:

Biographical information, like name, address and DOB, needed by a bank or service provider to establish and maintain a relationship with distinct customers

Identifiers, like bank account numbers, that serve as a proxy for biographical data to manage different customers.

[BTW I contend that the major Internet security and privacy problems would be remedied if pure identifiers could be relied upon, so we didn’t need to ask customers for piles of corroborating details.]

Authentication data, like passwords, PINs and biometric templates, whether static or one-time, used to establish the legitimacy of someone claiming to be associated with biographical data or an identifier [Note that the CVCs started out as authenticators but now they’re so widely divulged and leaked that they’re really just identifiers. Asking for CVCs over the web is frankly inane, symptomatic of sloppy ad hoc security; we might as well move to 19 digit credit card numbers].

Service history, like account balance and transaction details, which are private between the customer and the service provider, and in the case of banking actually represents the entirety of the product.

And all the other personal information (family details, telephone numbers, work details, preferences, affiliations …) that accumulates, and which can be used for good (like tailoring customer service, or cross-selling with consent) or evil (cross-selling without consent, spamming, surreptitious linking across different domains, identity theft etc).

I love that throwaway comment that service history is “the entirety” of the banking product. That’s so profoundly true.

5 Comments »

2009-07-12»

Meat of this post is here: skip or link to this bit. If you read my blog for my self-indulgent inner voyages of auto-exploration, read on:

Good news: I stumbled upon an exhaustive and self-consistent set of economic and political explanations, together with deeply-documented statistics and examples that instinctively match my own observations and gut-instincts about how the world works!

Bad news: the conclusions reached are shared about a few thousand other obscure eccentrics, most of whom hover around my age, gender and social demographic, profoundly lowering the chances that we are right about anything!

Good news: I’ve been in this position before: at the birth of the popular Internet. Hence I do not feel so bad!¹

More good news: Simultaneously in my field of view, I note lots of people are pondering the same broad topic area: the size of the corporation, regulatory transaction costs, and the true level of corporate economies of scale. We near a trend.

Bad news: that means you will be bored of this topic, and snarkily saying so, on MetaFilter in a matter of hours. Soon, your closest friends will link to an insightful Clive Thomas piece they have read on the subject. Doug Rushkoff will claim he invented it. Time passes. A Newsweek cover story appears.

Good news: you still have a few minutes to be ahead of the curve!

Here is my new Question of the Moment, together with the book you should read:

What if the Firm is The Wrong Size?

More leadingly, what if the libertarians and the lefties are both right? What if big faceless corporations are the primary benefactors of the misalignment of power relationships in our modern world; but those warped power relationships have largely been created by, and lopsidedly benefit from, the coercive intrusions of the State? And what if those intrusions — sometimes at the behest of capitalists puffing on big cigars, sometimes well-meaning Fabians — have led to an oligopolistic growth in corporate size that is way beyond the point of maximum efficiency that they would naturally shrink to in a freed market? What if all those suspicions you harboured about how horrendously inefficient any major corporation, or government department, you’ve ever worked for, were actually vindicated and documented by research?

That’s the delicious and dangerously self-confirming pleasure I gained from reading Organization Theory by Kevin Carson, a doorstop of a book that assembles a  wide-ranging selection of literature, from Keynesians to Austrians, Benjamin Tucker to Galbraith, econometric studies to Marx, Wobblies to Murray Rothbard to argue that Big Capitalism has been feeding off Big Government for centuries, and that it is way past time we liquidated them both.

Carson is a left-libertarian, which is sort of like saying you’re a whale-hunting Greenpeace supporter. In polite company, it gets you a lot of pointed questions, followed by a distinct lack of future polite company. I stumbled on this book, because, like many people my age, I’ve been jamming my tongue onto the very same two-pronged fork at dinner parties for years.  I’m old enough to remember the stultifying mouldiness of socialist dogma and managed markets consensus in the seventies and early eighties, as well as the cold heartless vacuum of Thatcherite/Reagan economics that gutted it. I like free markets because they remind me of all the best new ideas in my lifetime: decentralised, individualist-driven and reciprocal. On the other hand, the distance between that fast-moving, can-do solution space and the defensive flailing of the fat-catted, smug, Tessier-Ashpool plutocrat-run oligopolies you see on CNBC implies to me that free markets are about as far from the real world as the communist utopia was from East Germany, 1988.

Carson manages, as no other author I’ve read, to mesh these left and libertarian together. To do so, he has to stitch and mend much of the traditional narrative of both. Organization Theory reads, in parts, like one imagines the rest of Emmanuel Goldstein’s Book in 1984 might read: a rapid and abbreviated account of an centuries-long ahistorical and ongoing atrocity where no-one is quite on the side you imagined.

But this is no secret conspiracy. Carson, as the book’s title implies, is a theorist of the self-defeating nature of conspiracy: of organizational reaching too large to survive on a human scale, but too big to fail. Here, history is a repeated farce of correct economical instincts overridden by the temptation to take a coercive shortcut. Merchants commandeer the state and force land-enclosure as the quickest method to leverage labor and capital into the free market, thus guaranteeing the decrepit market inefficiency of both their labor exploitation and land use. Free trade globalists use military power to pry open up international markets, thereby subsidising trade with one-sided externalities that benefit only crony corporations. Progressive reform shores up the very cartels they seek to unseat, just at the point that those monopoly’s internal contradictions have begun their own demise. Well-meaning bureaucrats devastate working-class self-organization by their professionalization of social welfare. Management fads take obvious truths about incentive and sabotage in the workplace and turn them into saccharine parodies of real reform.

To list this out makes the book sound obvious, so let me point you to Sean Gabb’s  better attempt to summarise at the UK’s other Libertarian Alliance². Far more than the precis though, note the impact of the book on Gabb’s own opinions, as a relatively “mainstream” libertarian:

…its overall theme was a revelation to me. As said, many libertarians recognise that big business is inherently exploitative. But we have also assumed that it is reasonably productive within its own terms. It is not. As already mentioned, Mr Carson believes that large firms show many of the weaknesses long since indentified in centrally-planned economies. He says:

Individual human beings make optimal decisions only when they internalize the costs and benefits of their own decisions. The larger the organization, the more the authority to make decisions is separated both from the negative consequences and from the direct knowledge of the results. And in a hierarchy, the consequences of the irrational and misinformed decisions of those at the top are borne by the people who are actually doing the work. The direct producers, who know what’s going on and experience directly the consequences of decisions, have no direct control of those decisions.[p.193]

The results of this are an obsession at the top with targets that can be measured and an indifference to local understandings of how work may best be done. Profitability crises are managed by thinly-veiled attempts to make people work harder for less, by “downsizings” that cut measurable costs while destroying intangible patterns of human capital, greater incentives to management to restore profitability, and an interest in fad management theories that talk of “empowerment” and decentralised control, but are just shifts in legitimising ideology to jolly the workers along.

Strikes and other forms of industrial action should not be seen as mindless wrecking, or attacks on property or violations of contract. Rather, they are often attempts by the workers to claw back some of the humanity stolen by them.(Emphasis mine).

You see? This is a book that can turn even die-hard libertarians wobbly.

Like Gabb, I don’t necessarily agree with every pinion that Carson meshes together to form his argument. The problem with being a left-libertarian is that it’s pretty much idiosyncracy squared, so Organization Theory’s conclusions are almost guaranteed to have something you’ll disagree with: worker-owned production, free contracting, steroidically strong unions, no public transport subsidy, land property reform, FidoNet (yes, FidoNet).

But for all its sprawl, Organization Theory is the first book I’ve read in a long while that, while it only occasionally tangentially touches my domain knowledge, nonetheless manages gets the facts and policy implications right every time. I’ve read technical articles that have got both the details and the gist of the United State’s IP provisions in its Free Trade Agreements wrong (hint: they have nothing to do with free trade). And rarely have I seen anyone make the link between DeCSS and the lack of innovation in the DVD market since its introduction, let alone in the same volume as a detailed discussion of soil management (a gardener of my acquaintance says he got that right too). It’s one of those books where, if you disagree, you start scribbling in the margin. And when you agree, you start cutting and pasting into the top of your quotes file, and the bottom of your email sig.

And you’d be perfectly free to do so. Let me also point you to the draft PDFs of the book itself, which is copyrighted under the “Woody Guthrie license” (“anybody caught quoting or copying this book without our permission will be mighty good friends of ours”).

I’m still processing what I’ve read, and I’m sure I’ll end up re-processing and critiquing it here. In the mean time, I hope Carson’s book gets many more good friends, and worthy opponents. We’ve all had these thoughts about the inefficiency and the cruelty of the modern firm and the modern state. Perhaps instead of blindly picking one to support, we should consider the ties that bind them together.

¹ Truly, the emotional rewards one can extract from having been proven undeniably correct in a strongly-held position of dweebishly low popularity are not to be underestimated. Simply closing my eyes now and seeing the redoubled horror in the eyes of A.A. Gill, restaurant critic of the Sunday Times, as he wakes to a new day in the 21st century and realises, once again, that his radio co-guest from 1994 wasn’t the idiot he claimed and the Web did go on to be of pivotal importance to literature, is precious beyond compare. Screw you, successful author and racist A.A. Gill! May you continue to be cursed with a million young angry competitors, all with the face of me!

² There are two Libertarian Alliances in the UK, with the same logo and early history; both LA’s have the slogan “Let A Thousand Libertarian Alliances Bloom!”. Unlike the left, British libertarians appear to factionalise with some eventual good humour.

6 Comments »

2009-06-16»

[ Updated:. The time for this has passed; if you want to do something, install a Tor Bridge. ]

A lot of people have asked me about Opera Unite, because of my frequent hectoring about the importance of protecting and running services on the edge of the Network. In brief: how can I not love its manifesto:

Our computers are only dumb terminals connected to other computers (meaning servers) owned by other people — such as large corporations — who we depend upon to host our words, thoughts, and images. We depend on them to do it well and with our best interests at heart. We place our trust in these third parties, and we hope for the best, but as long as our own computers are not first class citizens on the Web, we are merely tenants, and hosting companies are the landlords of the Internet.

I do worry, though, about launching an experiment like this without a complete and compelling demonstration of its potential, though. The demo services that Opera offers are great, but they really are just demonstrations. It’s generating a lot of excitement and “wuh?” in equal measure on the discussions I’ve seen, which is something I recognise from my attempts to proselytize the edge to those already excited by the cloud.

It occurred to me (encouraged by Stef) that a great and timely Opera Unite application, just for the next few days, would be a web proxy  for Iranians. Run it on your Opera service, post your machine’s Unite URL onto twitter with a tag #spartacus, and Iran would be drowning in potential proxies to use.

Instead of a real http proxy (like Psiphon), the best implementation would simply let you append a URL to your Unite URL and get a website back, like “http://foo.bar.operaunite.com/www.cnn.com/”. That would get rid of handing over your cookies to an unknown third-party; it’d probably also discourage people using the service for private communications (no https, in Unite — it’d be great if Opera fixed that!).

Maybe I’d also stick in a geoip check to make sure the incoming requests are coming from a known Iranian IP block, just so users could feel worthy that they’re just catering to Iranians (you could pull them out of this free geolocation database). That way we wouldn’t be creating a permanent global clunky, insecure proxy network — or at least not until Iran recovers and starts its own phishing services.

I know I’m not a good enough JS programmer to pull this off, but the Unite JavaScript API certainly appears to permit cross-domain XMLHttp calls, and you can catch generic HTTP requests using opera.io.webserver.addEventListener(‘_request’,somehandler,false);, so it is theoretically possible (and here I hand wave to the implementation Gods).

A better solution, I know, is to get copies of Tor to those in Iran. But I think that much of what we’re seeing right now is less about perfect solutions, and more about loud, temporary solutions that might help, will do minimal harm, and as a side-effect further publicize the cause of Iranian protesters.

14 Comments »

2009-06-04»

A couple of months back when I decided to go and see some live comedy in the city. I mostly avoid watching stand-up, because I’ve picked up the habit from real comedians of sitting at the back, nodding and saying “Okay, that’s funny”, instead of actually laughing. Also, after a decade or so of orbiting comedy, I was pretty burnt out on watching it. The last time I’d seen any stand up in the US was in 2002 or so, and it wasn’t that appealing. Racist jokes about Mexicans and other people who don’t go to comedy clubs, extended Seinfeldisms, and witty self-deprecation from guys who were hovering dangerously close to public self-loathing didn’t seem that interesting.

The show I went to in April was interesting, though. Even the new acts were clearly very polished, and the established acts were clearly going in interesting directions. Nobody made bad mistakes, and some of them were making deliberately great “mistakes” — trying out new directions that most circuit stand-ups just don’t dare do. The mood of the show was very upbeat and friendly, and the comedians obviously liked each other and hung out socially. I went away thinking “there’s something going on here”, and spent the night clicking around the web to find out what it was.

Here’s what I patched together. In 2000, San Francisco got a comedy college, started up by old hand Kurtis Matthews. Matthews had been doing comedy from 1984 onwards, starting in L.A. and rising up with Bill Hicks, Jon Lovitz and others. In the late Nineties, he burned out on the dream and instead pursued his (by then) elaborate fantasy of actually getting a proper office job and not having to live out of Travelodges, Denny’s and unfriendly bars. But still the back-monkey wouldn’t exit: he still wanted to be involved in comedy, just not as one of its many frazzled front-line infantry in the sweatshop comedy club chains of America. So he started teaching comedy in his home town: taking all those people who wanted to do stand-up the way some people want to sky-dive — not necessarily as a career, but as a primal fear to overcome — as well as semi-professionals who wanted some honest feedback and advice from people who weren’t, at that moment, drunk and waiting for buffalo wings.

My stand-up career began and ended on a Summer night in Edinburgh in 1990. I’d finished college. My parents had just separated, so I didn’t really have a home to come back to. I’d rolled up to the Fringe without any shows to be in, because one of my friends had called me and told me that my best friend had broken up with his practically-wife, and was now sleeping with his best friend’s girlfriend. Oh, and they were all trying to run shows and sleep in the same room, as you do when you go to Edinburgh for the Fringe. I think I was there on a combination-mission of suicide-watch and youthful rubber-necking.

I also desperately needed to know what to do with my life. My college friends, Ben Moor and Al Murray, were both setting off to London to be famous. Others, like Stewart Lee and Rich Herring, were already there, grinding through the circuit. Armando Ianucci was I think doing some weird thing on Scottish radio, but there were rumours he was heading down south too. We all knew Armando was brilliant. We all wanted to be there when he hit. Meanwhile, my father, alone and worried that I was become attracted to a duther education course in Advanced Bohemian and Defaulted Student Loans, had put in an application in my name for a job at a computer magazine called .EXE. They were asking for 1000 words and an example of my coding style.

I hung around Edinburgh, without a show. I stood in as compere for a lunch show we did called the £1.99 cabaret, masterminded I think by Kevin Cecil and Andy Riley. Eventually I plucked up enough courage to do a real open mic, outside the protection of an audience half-made up of my friends. I’d seen Stew and Rich do it; it couldn’t be that bad, could it?

I don’t remember much. I remember we all had 30 seconds or so before we were gonged off. I remember a Scottish lady actually standing on a table and screaming at me “You’re shite!” for most of my half-minute. I remember running into Simon Munnery, but I couldn’t tell him what had happened. I wandered around Edinburgh’s yeasty night for hours.

At the end of the night, I decided, grandiosely, that I had two options as a life goal. Either I could do stand-up, or I could try and devote my life to writing a computer program that would make people cry (with happiness or sadness, I didn’t care). I plumped for the latter. No-one I explained it to understood what I meant at the time, because this was before Myst or Doom or the Internet. A few weeks later, I went for the interview at .EXE. They asked me who my favourite comedians were. They hadn’t heard of them, because all my comedy heroes were 23 years old or younger. I was 21.

Read the rest of this entry »

6 Comments »

2009-04-28»

You go away from the Internet for a couple of days, and all hell breaks loose. Everyone dies of swine flu, and then the Rails community goes into one of those fantastic explodey nosedives where all the geek social fallacies come out to play (probably including the one that claims that all geek social fallacies are on that list).

Maggie Koerth-Baker, BoingBoing’s current guest blogger, gives the best answers to the whine flu epidemic.

And, completely belying the normal trainwrecks that occur in comment threads about sexism in the tech world, here’s the best encapsulation on the Presentation of Doom and the whole You’re Just Offended Because We’re Flipping Sexy Rockstars response, taken from the Slideshare comments:

It’s not about whether it’s porn or not porn. Those commenting on people’s supposed hypersensitivity to nudity or bodies are completely missing the point.

It’s about presenting women as ‘the other,’ not ‘us.’ It would have been just as offensive if all the women shown were domineering mothers in aprons, shaking their fingers and threatening with rolling pins.

Can I just say that slowly, oh so nanometer-by-painful-nanometer slowly, we are perhaps getting better at dealing with both pandemics and parochialism?

2 Comments »

2009-03-24»

I gave up picking just one woman in tech who has inspired me over the years. I certainly knew that I couldn’t list them all. Here’s a roughly chronological list, which breaks down at the end when I realise that there could be no end.

I worked a Saturday job as a teenager at an IBM dealership when I was around thirteen. The first professional programmer I’d ever met worked there. She was incredibly smart and calm, and I remember being very impressed that you could actually make a living wage coding, instead of having to hide away in your bedroom hacking up ZX Spectrum platform games until somebody mystically gave you a Jaguar.

To save time, I will now skip a little arbitrarily (hello, Verity Stob!) across a few decades.

Out of my entire generation of Net-inspired London geeks in the Nineties, Pouneh Mortazavi was the only with enough initiative to do what everybody else dreamed of: she upped sticks to San Francisco alone. First she worked at Wired, holding together their databases; thereafter she started the Flaming Lotus Girls. She was always like some George Washington of a self-collected militia, marshalling and deploying technology and resources, cajolling and inspiring.

My ex-wife, Quinn Norton, has a aircraft-carrier full of skills and virtues, but if I had to pick a technological trait I admire most in her, it would be her ability to see its historical context, as well as extropolate it into the far future (and also her Perl coding style, which is the weirdest damn thing I ever did see).

Leslie Harpold simultaneously drove up the standards of web design, usability, and common human decency online. She’s still missed.

Annalee Newitz and I worked at EFF, and shared a career in writing 1000 word pieces on 1000 year topics, before she finally ran off to join the io9 intergalactic circus and exploration unit. She’s the embodiment to me of the one of the sublime joys of technology: jumping into the deep-end with just a laptop and a head filled with implications, and asking smart questions until you know as much as the expert will admit.

Cindy Cohn, legal director, and Shari Steele, executive director, of the EFF: I simply can’t list how much you owe those two people — but free crypto, and a censorship-free US Internet is probably a good start.

Suw Charman-Anderson, the creator of Ada Lovelace Day deserves a place on this list just for that, but she’s takes her place here because of her work binding technology and civil liberties together as the co-founder of the Open Rights Group.

I suspect Valerie Aurora will be on many people’s Ada Lovelace Day lists. A kernel hacker who can write, and whose writing can make me laugh out loud or smack my head in revelation.

Liz Henry wields technology as it should be: a fire to protect what’s right, and a blast of fresh air to winnow out what’s wrong. I’ve never seen any quite so able to pounce on new tech and bring it swiftly to bear on a societal problem, as well as explain its uses to those who might otherwise be bypassed by this revolution.

Becky Hogge was ORG’s second executive director, and another forger of ideas. Astoundingly good at herding other geeks, tech wonks, and MPs into spaces where they could all understand each other.

I get far too much attention for doing one single lousy talk about “life hacking”, whereas Gina Trapani deseves all of the credit for turning a dumb idea into a a brilliant, long-lived work of real usefulness — and for cranking out the code.

On the same note, butshesagirl‘s Getting Things Done application, Tracks, got me through some tough times. I admire anyone whose managed to keep an open source project on course, but I was particularly impressed by bsag’s skills. I watched and I hope learned.

And now no time to talk about the community chops of Cait Hurley, Rachel Chalmers’ piercing analysis, Rebecca Mackinnon’s work at connecting the world, Sara Winge’s genius at O’Reilly, Anno Mitchell’s sardonic Web 2.0 charisma, Strata Chalup’s sysadmin and southbay knowledge, Kass Schmitt sailor and LISPer, Silona Bonewald’s politech savvy, Sumana Harihareswara’s geek-management hybridism, Ana Marie Cox’s snark, Cherie Matrix’s cultural vortex, Elly Millican’s web aesthetic, Wendy Grossman’s sceptical optimism, Desiree Miloshevic’s globe-trotting ICANNoclasm, the piercing tech analysis of Susan Crawford (now working at the Whitehouse!), Sarah Deutsch, Kim Plowright, Paula Le Dieu, Charlie Jane Anders, Violet Berlin, Biella Coleman, Alice Taylor, Sophie Wilson who designed my entire teenage life…

These people make the world my daughter, Ada, lives in. I’m honored she has such shoulders to climb.

This was posted as part of the Ada Lovelace Day project; if you’d like to read more, I enjoyed Liz and butshesagirl‘s entries, spent a long time thinking about this sad and all too typical story, and saved the story of En-hedu-Ana, mapper of the stars, for Ada’s next storytime:

The true woman who possesses exceeding wisdom,

She consults [employs] a tablet of lapis lazuli

She gives advice to all lands…

She measures off the heavens,

She places the measuring-cords on the earth.

Comments Off on An Army of Adas

2008-12-16»

I’ve moved up in the world, at least geographically. I now live on top of Bernal Heights, rather than skulking at the bottom of it. I am now sitting in a little corner studio that exactly fits my remaining belongings. I am going to stay up this hill for the rest of the recession, hoping that even the fittest of the Darwinian food-rioters won’t have the puff to get up here. This will only work after all the petrol runs out of course: currently they could just drive up and run me over when I go to get coffee, and drive off to feast on my bagel. I need to think this through.

I wish I could say the new place has bought me peace of mind. Actually, I totally could (it’s lovely), but I’m trying to make this post about the scare I gave myself this weekend, and I needed a segue.

So.

It was my own fault. I was reading a thread on Metafilter about the 1983 post-nuclear portrayal “The Day After”. Many people scoffed at the fear shown at this TV movie, directed Nicholas Meyer (later to direct deathless classic Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan). For really scary, they agreed, the British equivalent, 1984’s Threads would be hard to beat.

Now, I didn’t watch Threads at the time, I don’t think because it was banned in my house, but more because I was locked upstairs nailing my brain to a ZX Spectrum. Also I don’t think I needed to be scared any further on the topic of nuclear annihilation at the time: aged 15, I was probably already maxed-out on long semi auto-biographical poems about its grim inevitability. My quota would not have been raised.

Nowadays, I’m a man however, and have put childish things like nuclear winters behind me. I’m all about the global warming now. Also, it’s pretty hard to watch anything the BBC drama department put out in the eighties without giggling a bit at the forced moralising and the peculiar mannerisms (and *cue* radiophonic workshop!). So, in a sort of shared dare with my fifteen-year old self, I kicked up the show on Google Video, and fast-forwarded to what everyone agreed was the really creepiest bits, about ten minutes from the end.

Argh. I had completely forgotten how into your bones all-out nuclear war got. On a conscious level, I was critiquing the postnuclear horrorfest as hard as I could, but damn it mashed all my buttons. I was seeing the scenarios play out under my eyelids every time I tried to get to sleep for the next few days. It was very, very, well done.

Over my many hours spent awake, I started forming a protective defensive sheath of narrative criticism. In terms of the realism of postwar life, my first thought was it played to a theory of a studied helplessness of individuals without a society around to protect them. If they’re just left alone, without the threads that the play uses as its key metaphor, things will just fall apart.

Now, I don’t think that’s true: societies are far better at rebooting themselves than this, even I’d suspect under the enormous stresses of a nuclear winter. The first impression you get from these minutes, is that humanity has just descended into brute-hood completely. They’d either do better than this, or die a lot quicker. (At this point you’re going to go and watch the movie, right? If so, I am in no way responsible for your nightmares, and I certainly don’t want to hear about how hard you laughed at it. Spoilers ahead: a bomb goes off, etc).

But actually, looking closer at those final minutes, far closer than anyone should, there’s also an off-screen implication that there is some kind of postnuclear society. It’s just that the people we are watching, Ruth and her daughter, aren’t part of it. There are hospitals, and law and order, and education: but they are minimal, the resources are closely hoarded, and Ruth and her daughter aren’t part of that society.

That makes more sense, and also fits in with how I remember lots of British serious drama at the time. It concentrated on the horrific lives of the underclass or disenfranchised in some way, lingering over its horror, and then basically screamed at you at the end. Extra marks for implying that your nice middle-class family might end up that way, Tess of the D’Urbervilles style.

I’m not saying that is a bad thing. It’s one of the functions of drama to expose what happens to the worst off. But at least in recognising the trope I, possibly horribly, got a bit less scared by the scenario in this case. You can feel pity for the individual living in a medieval world, but then you can sneak out and imagine some King Henry VIII-type revelling in his single roast two-headed chicken.

Or maybe that increases your horror at the injustice. But, for me (who always tried to guess how long Ingsoc would actually last before collapsing), I’m more optimistic knowing somebody is better off offscreen. I guess, given the horrible choice, I’d rather somebody was left holding the canticles than the whole world be echoing the experience of Ruth’s daughter.

It’s also because I am radioactively burned by all of those dramas that take you down the line of depicting the nether regions of depressing experience. I think concern drama pretty much shot all its wad at us in the 70s and 80s, when lots and lots of horrible scenarios (mostly involving no money, disability, or drug abuse) played out in predictably horrific yet inevitable way.

Because you can’t actually end that particular fictional device with someone coming out of it okay, you end up turning your watchers into more voyeurs than activists, and also narratively reinforcing that everybody below a certain income level (or number of nuclear winters) is always helpless or thick. (Threads has the extra twist, because everyone in it was individually helpless to stop a nuclear war, and the implication is that everyone became even more thick as a result of society collapsing into Ibsen-like horror.)

I do not think this form of artistic agit-prop had the right effect. It lead, I think, to horrible right wing people deciding that topics of concern deserve what they get because they are helpless and thick, and horrible left wing people deciding that these people can be treated like children because they are helpless and thick. I clutch what threads I do of individual libertarianism, because the bits I like don’t actually assume those things, although I do think it is often over-optimistic about how useful local intelligence and ability can be in many situations. Frankly, after gnawing my knuckles over the premises and depiction of Threads twenty-five years later, I can do with all the over-optimism I can get.

8 Comments »

2008-11-30»

I don’t understand why people think children aren’t capable of complex emotions, like regret or nostalgia or aesthetic pleasure or ennui or bittersweet pining. I see kids struggle to describe very subtle emotional states all the time. I loved Peanuts as a child for this reason — Charlie Brown and his friends seemed to be going through much more comprehensible stories than anything else, full of sighing and staring up at the stars in puzzlement. I used to collect all the paperbacks and my parents bought me Peanuts Jubilee when I was seven, a fairly serious memoir by Schulz which I devoured. I remember after reading one strip, asking my mum what “sarcastic” meant, and never quite being the same thereafter. I probably learned to read via Charlie Brown. It definitely taught me to absorb some of middle-America’s culture, maybe even before I’d fully absorbed my own. I have a miniature print of Linus and Snoopy bought from my friend Cait that’s sat in every homesick home I’ve lived in America.

They say that a recent Schulz biography has made him out to be a bitter, hard-to-love man. It seems unlikely, except in the way that quiet, unemotional men are sometimes be misunderstood and misplaced by their families. After the book was published, his children and wives came to his defence, rather undermining the biographers’ claim.

This quote from an interview with him (taken from the links of a lively metafilter posting) more closely represents the gentle but implacable humanism I got from his work:

“There was one strip where Charlie Brown and Franklin had been playing on the beach, and Franklin said, “Well, it’s been nice being with you, come on over to my house some time.” Again, they didn’t like that. Another editor protested once when Franklin was sitting in the same row of school desks with Peppermint Patty, and said, “We have enough trouble here in the South without you showing the kids together in school.” But I never paid any attention to those things, and I remember telling Larry at the time about Franklin—he wanted me to change it, and we talked about it for a long while on the phone, and I finally sighed and said, “Well, Larry, let’s put it this way: Either you print it just the way I draw it or I quit. How’s that?” So that’s the way that ended.”

There’s some fair commentary about how Schulz didn’t seem to know what to do with Franklin much of the time, and his later role as the comic page’s Token Black, but but his compact introduction to the strip — swimming at a beach with Charlie Brown, the mention of his father was in Vietnam (Charles says “My dad’s a barber. He was in a war too, but I don’t know which one.”), has a pretty light touch, given that this was published on July 31st, 1968, just a few weeks after King and Kennedy’s assassinations, and at the height of Peanuts’ popularity.

Edge of the West tells the rest of the story. I’m glad I had Peanuts to teach me how to live with disappointment and failure, as well as, more subtle, teach me of how the world was, all too slowly, improving.

4 Comments »

2008-11-05»

I was walking down Precita when the news came out that Obama had won. I could tell because, on the stroke of 8PM, San Francisco was cheering and beeping and honking. I popped into my corner shop, which has had a large Obama Hope poster on its door for months now. There was a couple in front of me that couldn’t care less, just running off to find a party. I bought a celebratory apple cider and a Snickers bar. Go, me.

I went up to my room, on my own, and watched the concession and acceptance speechs in amazing low-bandwidth-artifact-o-vision. I stayed in a chatroom with all of my British friends, who, for once, were envious of me being in America. I missed my daughter a little, who is in New England, hopefully storing all of this somewhere.

I remembered sitting here watching Obama’s nomination speech a million years ago, and then going to sleep cautiously hopeful, and waking up to it being forgotten and all the talk being Palin, Palin, Palin.

I ran around the tight little loops I’ve been running around since before January – the rosary of political websites that I touch once, then move on. Outside, San Francisco partied as wild as San Francisco can. You really didn’t want to be at Valencia and 19th tonight unless you planned to be very happy indeed.

In the Castro, they said, things were more bittersweet. Prop 8 was gaining, which meant gay marriage was losing. I watched the percentages on that stay solidly in favour of ripping an act of love away from my friends. Hit reload a few times to try and make it better (that’s how we fix things on the Internet: reload!). Watched the usual election craziness sit in the corner of the night where it could little harm: Georgia losing two million votes somewhere. Al Franken facing a comedy of recounts. North Carolina stuck on the edge of an Obama victory for hours.

I downloaded Obama’s victory speech in HD, using BitTorrent, a mechanism that like Presidents relies on thousands of others having the same idea at the same time. The President-Elect seemed serious: when Biden came out smiling, he just looked at him, like the most serious kid in the world, like someone whose grandmother had just died and left him a lonely rickety old house to live in.

They said he told them to cancel the fireworks. Outside, America already disobeys their new President.

2 Comments »