Attacking Allies

This has been a very strange week for me, but probably not for the reasons you think. This blog isn’t even in reference to any one thing in particular, but a common theme that I’ve noticed over the past seven to eight months. It’s become a trend to attack people on one’s own side. Yes, for those of you keeping score at home, you can include attacks on me if you like, but that’s only a fraction of an overall picture that I have yet to mentally grasp.For the record, yes, I am aware that there is a post that apparently goes after me. I have not read that post. I will not read that post. I’ve read small slivers that have been excerpted by my defenders. So, on advice of council, Mr. Finn is not available for comment, nor will he be. Thank you. Moving on.

But, yeah, it’s strange to see people who are theoretically on each other’s side to tear each other apart. I saw Superversive Science Fiction and the Pulp Revolution people go after each other for several weeks, if not several months, and I’m still trying to figure out where the hate was coming from in the comments (I must stress the comments). Hell, I’m still lost with where the disagreements were coming from. In Appendix N, I saw enough overlap between Superversive fiction and Pulp that I thought that Pulp could easily be labeled the action-packed variety of Superversive. The authors themselves had no animosity towards one another, but wow, the comments on those parts were just a little angry.

So, this has been going on for a while, spread out over multiple places on the internet, and I still don’t get it.

There is the usual “X is not us, I must distance myself from X.” Though I don’t think that Pulp or Superversive ever really had a lot of declarations that one is the other. I see a lot of overlap between the two, but I see few others who do. So I’m strange. Big flipping shock. There is the Sad vs. Rabid debate … but that was so clear, I did a blog post on it that was fairly short. Granted, the post at the time is hilarious in retrospect, but that’s another story. The point is, that the differences were so plain and clear that anyone who couldn’t see the difference was either ignorant or lying. I can’t even say “stupid,” because I think even the moronic could see the difference.

You can even go into politics and see this. You have Republicans spending more time attacking the “Alt-Right” while you have Leftist psychopaths running around burning books, rioting, assaulting anyone who supports the first amendment, all while calling themselves “anti-fascist”… talk about irony … and shooting republicans.  But what are some right wingers spending their time discussing? Two protesters show up and disrupt the “Let’s kill Trump” Julius Cesar play in the park for two minutes, and that’s what’s getting a lot of ink. And, again, it’s right after a nutcase shot up a bunch of GOP politicians during baseball practice … but somehow, the important thing is that they focus on two people who interrupted a play for two minutes. Huh.

I’m a historian. There is a history where wars of independence are usually followed by civil wars. America was lucky in that we managed to hold off on our civil war for over 80 years — luck and a lot of quality politicians who never died (It felt like Clay and Calhoun lived forever). World War II saw the alliance of three people who were at each other’s throats just twenty years before….yes, there was a bit of shooting between Russia and the remaining allies post-revolution. The point is that the US, the UK, and Russia all looked at Germany, and eventually all joined forces to crush Hitler. THEN they spent the next 50 years going after each other.

The counter example to this is the Chinese Civil War. If you remember, the Pacific end of World War II had Japan invading China during their civil war. The communists were, at least, smart enough to fight the Japanese, while their opponents were trying to fight both the civil war and the Japanese. The “People’s Republic” shows you who ultimately won that. The opponents currently run Taiwan.

In the wider case of the GOP, I look at the decision to treat folks who are not against them as the enemy, while there are people THROWING MOLOTOV COCKTAILS AND SHOOTING AT THEM, I have to scratch my head.  Seriously, people, is there a widespread issue of being unable to have the self preservation instincts of Joseph flipping Stalin? When there are people actively shooting at you, deal with them, THEN deal with whatever internal problems there are between you.

That’s why one of the smartest things I’ve seen over the past few months was the end of the Superversive v Pulp debate — Jeffro and Anthony Marchetta saw that the comments were becoming angry, and they shut it down before things got out of hand. Again, there was no true animosity between them. The debate was a debate. They disagreed on things. It helped with blog hits. When it starting going negative, it stopped. The end.

So, yeah, 2017 has been strange. I don’t quite get why those who are technically on the same side go after each other. I don’t get it, I never will get it, and I just wish I could. Hell, even my own personal experience lately is confusing, even to me. Hell, if I can’t even figure out how to quell the storm I’m in the center of, comprehending the logic of the other situations is far beyond me.

Though, to end this on a more positive note, the post title, “Attacking Allies” in this case means two different things. One, attacking your friends. Two, allies who attack on your behalf.

In my own little circle, it has been made strange not by blog posts attacking me, but by people who have extracted their own conclusions from people defending me. Erroneous conclusions. But they are made even more strange by who is throwing these additional accusations. In one case, it is a Facebook friend who I’ve actually done things for out of friendship. He had a kickstarter, and I used time on my podcast to bandy his wares. He was unfairly attacked in a Facebook group by a psychotic harpy, and I had a choice to become a moderator of the group, or defend someone I liked and respected. I chose the latter. He has reciprocated over the last few months by becoming increasingly hostile while interacting with me less and less.

So … huh?

I mention all of this because the confusing thing about it is that, at the end of the day, I actually don’t care about this turnaround. One of the more vociferous voices against me, who I thought was a just and honorable man, turns out to be merely angry. I am actually surprised my my own reaction. Usually, I would expect to be shocked about this sudden but (apparently) inevitable betrayal. But, again, much to my own surprise, I realize that if this is how one goes about treating one’s allies, who needs them? It is time to focus on something else. If an “ally” attacks you … then the “ally” is no longer worthy of your attention. The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune are annoying, but when someone is throwing a Molotov cocktail at your head, some things are a little more important.

In my case? I have a novel out. So if someone would like to attack me, go ahead, you have free reign, because I really do have better things to do. I’m busy, damn it. I hope to have seven books out by the end of the year. But I do suggest you watch out for my friends… some of whom I didn’t even know I had.

Once upon a time, I blogged about an incident in high school where everything had fallen to crap. The strange thing then, as now, is that I had people rallying to my defense who didn’t know me. Or, people who had been paying attention to me well enough to realize how much BS was going on around me.

Now it happens once again. Where people who I though barely knew of my existence have rallied to my defense against people who I thought knew me. It’s been a great comfort just knowing that there are people out there who actually don’t think ill of me. Where there are people looking at the same situation that I am, and coming to similar conclusions: the conclusion being to tilt one’s head and go “What the Hell?”

And these are people who have jumped to my defense.

I hate trite sayings. I hate cliche. I hate overused fortune cookie wisdom. But it really is true: those who stand by you don’t need evidence, and those who stand against you won’t accept it. Several month ago, I have offered several of my detractors evidence and conversation to prove that rumors about me were untrue– they rejected even looking at it. When several people who came to my aid wanted to back me, I offered to show them the same evidence — they didn’t need it, they just believed me. And of those people who have come to either my aid, my defense, or just comfort, not a single one has asked me to justify their faith in me. Not a single one.  It’s embarrassing to realize that I’m not certain that I would be that good a friend.

When my publisher, Russell, first jumped into the fray, I made some sort of comment that boiled down to “Ah, yes, this sort of thing with an author damages the brand.” His response was a quick and easy, “Nah. I’d do this even if you weren’t one of my authors.”

When things like that happens, it’s difficult to be a cynic. I actually have faith in humanity again.

So, thanks should be made to Dawn WitzkeJim Fear, Russell Newquist, Injustice Gamer Alfred Genneson, JD Cowan, Jon del Arroz, Jeffro Johnson, Cirsova Magazine, the Puppy of the Month Book Club, Mr. Oghma, as well as the moral support I’ve gotten from authors at SuperversiveSF. And, as always, His Tankness, Tom Knighton, whose brief exchange helped more than he could know.

In some cases, it’s nice to look out over the lynching party and seeing the people who haven’t joined in. Even if they don’t jump in and try to stop it, it’s reassuring to know who isn’t party to it.

Anyway, I know I’m leaving some people out, but after the first dozen, I lose track. It became a bit of a furball on Twitter after a while. The hash tag was amusing though. If I haven’t mentioned you, it’s just because there were so many. And I thank you all.

It’s good to know that the ones who hate my guts are actually in the minority. Just loud.

Illegitimi non carborundum

Anyway, if you’re interested, A Pius Man might just be your cup of tea.

And, if you’ve done that….

The Dragon Awards are open and ready for nominations, and I have a list of suggestions you might want to take a look at. If you already  have a good idea of what you want, just click here to go and vote for them. The instructions are right there.

Pius Politics

I mentioned politics in the last post, and I meant to really get on that a little more, but I sort of drifted away from politics and into my general temperament, which impacts my politics, but doesn’t spell out what the bleep they are, or how they show up in my novel, A Pius Man — which centers around Pope Pius XII as a MacGuffin.
As I said before, I lean libertarian-right. More laws just means that the government can screw you over in more and more various and sundry ways, so I’m wary on laws for the “common good.” I won’t say kill all the lawyers, but I think tort reform can do that easily enough. Unfortunately, like most people, I’m a bit schizophrenic. I dislike the premise of feeding Moloch, but there are certain people I really want to remove themselves from the gene pool. I’m a New Yorker who thinks everyone should own a handgun, a rifle and a shotgun. I think drugs a really, really bad idea, but hey, legalize them — the more people who get high, the more Darwin awards we can hand out…. except for PCP, not even drug dealers will sell that crap anymore, as a general rule.
Like libertarians, there are a lot of things I don’t personally believe in, and wouldn’t recommend, but I’m leaving the fate of your own soul between you and God. Enjoy.
I generally despise politics with the burning passion of a thousand suns. The government should leave me alone unless I need actual aid — like someone has broken into my house and I’ve run out of bullets.
So, of course, since I truly loathe politics, A Pius Man happens to be the most politically charged book I’ve ever written. With the overall topic of Pius XII, I do take a side. I believe my conclusions are obvious based on my research. For those of you who have read The Irrational Atheist, you probably have an idea about that punchline.
However, the political portions of the book are discussions, not rants. And the politics are driven more by the characters than by me.

For example…

Sean A.P. Ryan. Mercenary. Believes in the free market system, heavy weaponry, and grew up in Hollywood: therefore he has lived his entire life swimming out of a Leftist cesspool, and dove into the chlorinated waters of libertarianism. When queried on his political affiliations, he would say, “I believe people should be able to own marijuana and machine guns. I will laugh at the marijuana crowd, but if I have my guns, I’m happy.”

Scott Murphy. He’s a spy who huts down terrorists for a living. His politics: “I believe in the power of waterboarding. But I’d sooner talk terrorists to death. It’s more painful in the long run. When you can talk them into revealing everything they know, kill them, move up the chain of command. Repeat until they’re willing to be peaceful, or they are peacefully dead.” He’s an accountant by training, so his first thought is how to steal terrorist money.

Giovanni Figlia. Cop. His father was blown up by a Red Army faction in the 1980s, so he has a grudge against extreme, gun-toting Leftists. Aside from that, his politics are: “I have to protect the most powerful religious leader on the planet, and he insists on pissing off nearly one-third of the world’s population. Leave me alone and let me do my job.”

Pope Pius XIII (Born: Joshua Kutjok): Hard right-wing. Has all but declared war on the Sudan. Thoroughly dislikes tyrannies, which means North Korea and China dislike him right back. “I am against abortion, gays being married in my church, and contraceptives are against the religion. Then again, you should only have sex with the person you marry, so abortion and contraceptives shouldn’t be needed. However, my homeland of Sudan is going through thirty years of religious and ethnic warfare, I have better things to do than deal with whining hedonists!”

Father Francis Williams, S.J.: “I’m a Jesuit transfering into the Opus Dei. I speak six languages and I can kill people with my rosary beads … what was your question?”

Maureen McGrail. Interpol. “I’m too busy being shot at to have a political opinion. Leave me alone.”

Secret Service Agent Wilhelmina Goldberg: As a special adviser to anyone who wants the Secret Service to audit their security, she has been all over, and her political opinion is simple. “At the end of the day, America looks good by comparison.”

The above characters have more influence over how the political discussions go than I do. So, the topics will be… interesting.

So, have enough fun yet? Just click here.

And, if you’ve done that….
The Dragon Awards are open and ready for nominations, and I have a list of suggestions you might want to take a look at. If you already  have a good idea of what you want, just click here to go and vote for them. The instructions are right there.

Alt-Pius Politics

I actually did this post once, long ago, when dinosaurs walked the Earth and I thought there was some semblance of sanity kicking around in politics, and would be back in popular fashion after Obama left office.

Nope. Sorry. Obviously, that didn’t happen. Recently, we had the meltdown of “China Mike” Glyer and File 770 after Larry Correia took him to the woodshed. We had a Bernie Sanders psycho shoot up some Republican politicians at a ball game, and democrats trying to simultaneously 1) Disavow all responsibility for it 2) Blame Trump, 3) Try to blame guns for the shooting and 4) Laugh at shooting Republicans. All in the same week.So, no, to quote Chico Marx, “everybody knows that there is a no sanity clause” … especially in politics.

Myself? Most days, I’m somewhere between small-l libertarian or conservative. Most of the time, my politics boil down to “leave me alone, and no one gets hurts.”

But I’m not really Alt-right. I’m certainly not control Left. There are days I’m almost Ctrl+A, Del. Because, good God, “kill ’em all and let God sort them out” really does sound like an action plan.
But no, I’m not a nihilist. I’m at once too Catholic and not energetic enough. Though the world continues to show me just how justified I am in my borderline misanthropic tendencies. I mean, let’s face it, the standard response to a terrorist response should be a calm, reasoned investigation, finding the people behind it — the planners, the money men, etc — and kill every last one of them in horrific ways that will make anyone who has similar ideas think three or four times about doing the same thing ever again. Heck, if I were in charge after 9-11 … well, I’m relatively certain that I wouldn’t be as calm and as collected as Tom Kratman’s response in A Desert Called Peace. And that series includes torturing journalists to death for supporting terrorists, and mining the perimeter of a city, starving them out, including the women and children.
As I’ve said elsewhere, my overwhelming sin is wrath.
But this is why I don’t write anything like that. I’m depressed enough by this insanity we call reality on a daily basis, I don’t necessarily need it in my day to day life. I’m already depressive. So I don’t write nihilistic crap, I don’t read it, and I’m easily annoyed with people who see nihilism as some sort of superior art form. I’m also Catholic, nihilism isn’t our beat.
Oddly enough, I’m probably more of a romantic than anything else. Pick … almost any of my books, sooner or later, you’ll probably trip over a Thermopylae situation of 100-1 odds, love conquering all, and righteous fury is a positive tool for going just that little bit farther as you’re being beaten to death by a 2×4.
…Hell, forget book series, you could say that summarizes several plot points in A Pius Man alone.
I guess I’m just an idealist who hates that the world wouldn’t live up to the standard of. … anything.

But, yeah. My politics don’t lend itself to nihilism, though there are days that I think “genocide” is a viable military option. Thankfully, no one ever listens to me.

So, have enough fun yet? Just click here, and you can preorder it.

 

And, if you’ve done that….
The Dragon Awards are open and ready for nominations, and I have a list of suggestions you might want to take a look at. If you already  have a good idea of what you want, just click here to go and vote for them. The instructions are right there.

The Iconic Hero and the Superversive

I make no bones about the fact that I prefer Sean Connery when I’m talking about James Bond movies. It’s not merely that his take on the character is consistently entertaining, but that it’s consistent period from film to film. This is a man who knows who and what he is, does not apologize for it, and has no issues with what he does; he lives for the mission, and believes in the mission. It’s nothing like Danial Craig’s Bond at all. Robin D.
Laws identifies this as “The Iconic Hero”, and explained in this 2012 post why this is a valid characterization choice:

While a dramatic hero follows a character arc in which he is changed by his experience of the world (examples: Orpheus, King Lear, Ben Braddock), an iconic hero undertakes tasks (often serially) and changes the world, restoring order to it, by remaining true to his essential self.

Prevailing creative writing wisdom favors the changeable dramatic character over his serially unchanging iconic counterpart, but examples of the latter remain enduring tentpoles of popular culture. It’s the clear, simple, elemental iconic heroes who keep getting reinvented every generation. Each such classic character spoke to the era of its invention, while also evoking an eternal quality granting it a continuing resonance. We are going to create a new set of heroes who speak to the contemporary world while evoking the inescapable power of the iconic model.

An iconic hero re-imposes order on the world by reasserting his essential selfhood. The nature of his radical individuality can be summed up with a statement of his iconic ethos. It is the ethos that grants higher meaning to the hero’s actions, and a clue to his creator’s intentions. An iconic hero’s ethos motivates and empowers him.

The first paragraph in particular is the mission of a Superversive hero: to restore order to the world. What he does is how he makes that happen, that assertion Laws speaks of, is where the variation lies. In the quoted post, Laws goes over several iconic characters and shows how you can summarize their stories in a sentence by identifying their ethos and how they assert it to restore order to their world time and again. What he doesn’t identify, but nonetheless shows, is that this summary also serves as the basis for every story outline you’ll need in writing stories about those characters that are true and faithful additions to their literary corpus that the readers will accept.

There’s something else that this post, and the concept in it, reveals: how the Enemy subverts the culture. They do resort to making Iconic Heroes into Dynamic Characters, putting them through “arcs” that denigrate their ethos and thereby degrade the characters into agents of subversion to further the Enemy’s agenda. (One need only look at what goes on at Marvel and D.C. Comics to see this in action.)

While stories that have characters changed by the experiences of the narrative are necessary and valuable, this is not a universal requirement. Just look at what’s been done with the Arthurian Mythos to see (a) that it’s not necessary and (b) it’s often done to subvert, degrade, and destroy a targeted culture- and therefore, not to be trusted anymore.

Consider an Iconic Hero when you’re next sitting down to create something, especially if you’re looking to do so as part of a series–writing, gaming, etc.–because you may find it better suited to your objectives than you might think.

SFWA, or STFU? WTF?

It’s not a new concept that the wonderful world of writers, like every other organization, has fights. And back stabbing, back biting, and other backwards thoughts, ideas and concepts. Then there’s the SFWA, the Science Fiction Writers of America.  If you haven’t been brought in on this round of inside baseball, the SFWA has started appealing to one small, particular demographic, namely the psychotic political left. You know the ones I’m talking about, because there are no leftist moderates anymore — just turn on the news, and watch for five minutes before the next riot happens. In story form, one story that meets these standards includes a world where the universe is filled with subservient men, the women rule everything, and there is peace throughout the world … a story that has every woman I’ve told it to laughing themselves sick.

Apparently, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for good fiction to meet SFWA standards.

This is a bit of business that has some old-school (and new) SF writers pissed. Names include Harlan Ellison and Harry Turtledove, among other.  And Harlan is no conservative. The chronicles of the SFWA’s downward spiral does make you wonder exactly how far down this rabbit hole goes.  Though I’m not brave enough to go spelunking into that particular asylum.

However, I noted something in the above articles, that the SFWA got pissed off over “a book with women in chainmail on the cover.”  Well, one, if it’s fantasy, what else are women going to wear? It’s either chainmail, leather armor, or platemail (the latter heavy enough to tip someone over like a turtle on their back, so I don’t recommend it for anyone).

Then, something occurred to me.  Could this hissy fit have been over Chicks in Chainmail? For those of you who don’t know this classic comedy series, it’s laugh out loud funny stories in fantasy universes, like the Suburban fantasy anthology Witch Way to the Mall, Strip Mauled, and Fangs for the Mammaries.

The two series have something in common.  Two somethings, in fact.

1) They’re all edited by Esther Friesner.

2) They’re published by Baen books…Sound familiar?

Does anyone else have a bad feeling about this?

And if you don’t want to go by the version in gifs, the pure text version of what’s been happening is even LESS reassuring.

Now, there are a few problems with everything the SFWA has been pulling.  Using feminism as authority structure creates pedantic drivel in favor of a false narrative of multiculturalism (ie: we’re going to shove this down your throat, and you will like it, because. Just because). They want writers to effectively write stories about “womyn,” gays, transgenders, african-Americans, native Americans, gays, Asian peoples they have no idea about “but hey taoism sounds cool and namaste, yo.”

You can view this a few ways.  The rabbit hole, making a “women only” race course, putting a Stalin-ish leash on their editors to make certain they’re publishing the “right” things, or redefining “literature” as whatever supports the current tint.  No matter what you call it, it’s not good for writing, storytelling, or the genre. If you wanted to say they’re trying to destroy the genre, well, you wouldn’t be the first.

Though you can also see it as people like Baen and Castalia house are busy taking over the universe of science fiction, and we just can’t have that. Castalia House, after all, has the eeevvviiillll Vox Day …. who SFWA kicked out of their little clubhouse for being politically incorrect. And publishes John C Wright — Catholics aren’t good for business, I’m sure. (Says the snarky Catholic)

Baen, for those of you who might not know, is filled with interesting people.  Many of them are conservative, but also Libertarian, and at least one card-carrying Communist, Eric Flint (he pulled out his card at a DragonCon one year).  Unfair, but balanced might be a way to put it.  Each person will bring their own politics and philosophies to bear in their own novels, but usually not in a way that would piss me off. I’ve read Flint, and he’s quite interesting. They also have John Ringo, David Weber, and Timothy Zahn, who are conservative-ish, if not outright conservatives.  And then there’s Tom Kratman.

These two are making TONS of money.  Metric tons. They are everywhere, and always publishing.

So, a libertarian press making money? And making money with something like Chicks in Chain Mail?

If Jason is right, then this SFWA brough-ha-ha is really a purge in response to Baen.  After all, with nimrods this ideologically pure, Baen is downright heretical.  So we have the “conservative” juggernaut of Baen versus an ever-more left-leaning SFWA… If Jason’s idea is true, then the SFWA has a problem.  By catering to smaller and smaller elements of their own preconceptions, they’re just throwing good money after bad. Like all of those horrid anti-war propaganda films from 2001 on, I’m sure it makes the producers and writers feel good, but who’s going to see it? For every five films like Syriana, they still couldn’t match the profit of 300, Iron Man, or Captain America.

As some of you may know, I escaped from a PhD program. Academia is rife with the sort of PC crap the SFWA is doing, but I haven’t noticed it in too many POPULAR books or movies. Sure, Hollywood cranks out this drek endlessly, but who watches it? 300 was a January release, and it made so much money, they started a sequel immediately (it only took forever to write and produce). So, certainly, people are teaching this stuff in the halls of academia, but when it comes to where the metal hits the road — where people spend their money — John Wick, DC, Marvel, and their ilk outperforms that sort of drek every single time. If The Dark Knight Rises had a feminist message beyond “Anne Hathaway looks good in leather,” I missed it (I actually thought the message was “Occupy Wall Street = Bad”). There is even a Kickstarter dedicated towards making these politically correct nightmares in print. “Women destroying science fiction,” is the actual title of one such stupid project.

This, of course, is a stupid idea for a book series, anthology, novel, what have you, if only because of actual SF written by women.  Let’s look at JD Robb, aka Nora Roberts — her In Death series is a fun science fiction murder mystery series set in the 2060s. How about Julie Cochran, coauthor to John Ringo? Or Jane Lindskold. Is Tamora Pierce or Naomi Novik hurting for cash because they’re women? I have yet to dodge JK Rowling because she’s a woman. Laurell K Hamilton was a okay writer for about 8 books, then it became smut, but at least it wasn’t feminista drivel.

Isn’t it nice to see that writers can be as petty as everyone else? Then again, I became a writer because I don’t like dealing with people as a rule.

My takeaway from all this? Write good books, and no one will care what gender you are. Honest.

I, for one, won’t even NOTICE what gender you are (You can’t imagine how long it took me to sort authors by gender, you really can’t).  If you write bad books, no one will read them, and the SFWA will just keep burning its cash, and its credibility — assuming that they have any left.

The Superversive in Tabletop RPGs: Why Is It So Rare?

There aren’t many tabletop RPGs, or supplements thereof, that are clearly or explicitly Superversive. However, many such games (and the official settings sold so eagerly for them) contain that potential. The publishers explicitly sell their games, and those settings, with a slant of “Be the good guys against the bad guys!” Yet it is increasingly rare for actual Superversive play to occur, something that’s been a known issue in gaming forums and sites for over 20 years.

Well, there IS an explanation. Dragon Award winner Brian Niemeier made a post his blog today regarding this sort of discussion as it applies to the Big Two of the American comics world, D.C. and Marvel. As those two big giants routinely miss the point, so do their fellow travelers in the tabletop gaming world. As I know first-hand that SJWs in comics, gaming, film, television, and SF/F publishing all network via the convention scene it’s not hard at all to see how this moral malaise spread to all of these cultural subsectors.

(Brian’s post contains the over-arching conversational thread, and I encourage you to read it before you come back here, because I’m explicitly building upon that thread as it relates to Superversive RPGs.)

There are two key observations to be had here. The first is by Jeffro Johnson (said here):

If you want people to employ traditional virtues in service of civilization, they first have to be able to imagine them. Heroism and romance were suppressed specifically to make it easier to destroy a people. The poindexters hold loyalty in contempt and sneer at sacrifice. They think goodness is for chumps. And they have held the reigns of culture for decades.

By the time that Dungeons & Dragons exploded into the mainstream around 1980 (there’s that timestamp again), this degree of cultural subversion had already occurred. If not for the brief turnaround in the zeitgeist by films like the original Star Wars through to the mid-’80s (e.g. Flash Gordon, Krull, Raiders of the Lost Ark) the degeneracy would have concluded well before the turn of the century. Instead, one last generation had the opportunity to have the Superversive shown to them in their early years.

In short, without examples of the Superversive to fire our imaginations, many of us will never even think to play that out in our fantasy adventures when we play tabletop RPGs no matter how well either the rules or the settling allow for it– and that, right there, is a major factor for why explicitly Superversive tabletop RPGs such as Pendragon remain niche games in a niche hobby.

Following that aforementioned thread, this observer nailed why the very publishers that comprise the thought-leaders in tabletop RPGs constantly undermine the Superversive potential of their own creations:

But they can’t imagine that. Reason number two is because of their self-imposed lifting of hypocrisy as the “ultimate” sin. It is better to not have a code at all than to have one and fail to live up to it. This is reflected in the method by which they try and tear down icons – hell, they even said it in Spider-Man 1 (Toby MacGuire), “the thing people like best is to see a hero fall.” (Paraphrased). They cannot fathom that the (a) the purpose of a code, even an unreachable one, is to set a goal for all people to strive to achieve, and (b) that you can’t live up to it all the time is because we are flawed, fallen, and human. However, (c) that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t stop trying.

I’ve seen this first-hand. They can’t conceive of it at all. The non-stop mockery of virtue, of the pursuit of a moral or ethical standard, and the misunderstanding (often willfully so) of what “hypocrisy” means all contribute to this subversion of the ostensible claim to “heroic adventure” (which they also misunderstand).

You see this in the long-form when the rules for games in strongly moral settings, such as Star Wars, keep getting watered down to allow for that demoralization to feed upon itself at the table. You see this in the creep of their Pink Slime amorality into their rules and settings, and the pushing of clearly subversive messages (i.e. yet more virtue-signalling) into every part of their business output- product and service alike.

While there are some people left in tabletop gaming who haven’t been fully converged, most long ago bent the knee and drank the demon’s blood- they are part of the cult, and they hate you. This is why the Superversive is rare in tabletop RPGs: they hate it. Don’t give them your money, or your children.

Just as readers closed their wallets and walked away from The Big Two in comics, and do so to the Big 5 in SF/F, this is necessary in tabletop gaming. Close the wallets, and walk away from Omelas- it’s YOUR child they forsake.

(And yes, this is much the case for videogames as well.)

A Day in the Life of Joe (Blue State Edition)

NOTE: “A Day in the Life of Joe Republican” is an essay meant to demonstrate the usefulness of Progressive policies and hypocrisy of conservatives who take advantage of them. A shortened version of the original and my “re-write” are presented below.

 

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee.

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. to prepare his morning coffee. Then he remembers that he doesn’t have any real coffee. All the coffee beans are now Free Trade and Organic, so he can’t afford to buy them anymore. He measures out the instant coffee powder into his mug and fills it with water.

 

The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards.

The water trickles very slowly into the mug because his kitchen is equipped with low-flow faucets, as per the new regulations. After a couple of minutes, the mug is full and he heats the coffee in the microwave.

 

With his first swallow of coffee, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to insure their safety and that they work as advertised.

With his first swallow of coffee, he takes his daily medication. It’s not as effective as the one he used to take, but FDA banned the medication that worked for him because it could cause miscarriages. Joe tried to explain to his doctor that he was not in danger of a miscarriage, but there was nothing to be done.

 

All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer’s medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance – now Joe gets it too.

The medication used to only have a $10 co-pay, but now Joe has to pay $50 because the union negotiated the new insurance plan that covers in-vitro fertilization for female employees, and the cost had to be made up by reducing pharmacy coverage.

 

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe’s bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.


He prepares his morning breakfast, a bowl of organic oatmeal. He misses his eggs and bacon, but a carton of eggs is $10 at his local supermarket because the eggs came from free range chickens who only eat organic corn. Bacon is illegal in his town because it offends his Muslim neighbors.

 

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. It doesn’t clean his hair very well, but it’s made of bio-degradable vegetable based ingredients that are safe for the local wildlife. He takes care to finish the shower after 2 minutes to comply with the city water restrictions.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. He coughs from inhaling the car exhaust fumes. His street is now much more crowded with cars because one of the two lanes is reserved for bikes. It’s the middle of winter so no one is riding a bike, but the law still applies.

 

He walks to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

He walks to the subway station and sticks the Metro Card into the slot. It’s rejected because the fair just went up again and he needs to re-charge the card more often. Luckily, he has plenty of time because the loudspeaker just said something about a delay, and judging by the crowd on the platform, he may not even get into the next train anyway. Joe had to give up his car last year because the new 35% parking tax at the garage. At least he doesn’t have to worry about gas prices going up. The thought energizes him enough to push his way through the crowd and make it inside the train just before the doors slide shut.

 

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe’s employer pays these standards because Joe’s employer doesn’t want his employees to call the union.

Joe begins his work day. He’s an excellent worker, but only received a 2% increase last year because he reached the top of his pay grade and can now only get inflation adjustments. His usual partner has been on paid leave for the last week to take care of a sick pet. The union fought very hard for that concession, and Joe was happy when they won. Now he’s not very happy because he needs to cover the station on with a less experienced employee, but it’s worth it to have the union benefits for everyone.

 

Joe is home from work… He turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn’t mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day.

Joe is home from work. He turns on the evening news. The news anchor keeps saying that conservatives are bad and liberals are good. He doesn’t mention that the beloved Democrats have passed laws and regulations that caused many of the difficulties and sacrifices Joe faces throughout the day.

 

Joe agrees: “We don’t need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I’m a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have.”

Joe agrees: “It’s a good thing we don’t have those free-market conservatives in charge! After all, I’m just a regular man who believes the government should make everyone’s lives easier, just like they’ve done for me.”