On Fan Theories

Seems like these days people love to come up with theories about their favourite shows. Every now and then I come across a article promoting "This fan has a brilliant theory!" stories. They always seem to have originally been posted on reddit or somewhere similar, and then presented on other sites.

And these aren't always just "Hey, I just noticed this thing that they hid in every episode", either. A lot of them are "What if" scenarios that it seems people have put a lot of thought into, occasionally using very twisted and distorted logic to hammer the square peg of the theory into a round hole. It's almost like it's the new thing to do...

I'm not sure why it seems to have taken off. Maybe it's just that, as with everything else, the Internet just makes it easier to share whatever comes to mind. Kinda like I'm doing now!

Some of them are pretty interesting. There was one that examined the dynamic between Batman and the Joker, concluding that the Joker's ultimate victory would be to make Batman kill him, that even in death he'd win. Which is why it's so important to Batman that he never cross that line.

Then there's the one which makes up a story that basically has Batman being sent back in time by a supervillain and stumbling across the scene of his parents' death. When he realises that nothing's going to happen, he winds up killing his own parents and then going mad and becoming the Joker. Which, as an official story published by DC would be an interesting idea.

As a fan-made OMG THIS GUY JUST CHANGED HOW WE THINK ABOUT THIS theory, it's hogwash. It's not connecting the dots in a new and interesting way, it's just proposing an implausible scenario.

And then there's this theory about The Princess Bride. Basically, some kid watches the movie for the first time and gets to the scene where the grandson asks if his grandpa will come back tomorrow to read to him some more. And grandpa says, "As you wish". And the kid comes up with the idea that grandpa is secretly the latest Dread Pirate Roberts and he's about to pass it on to the grandson.

And his dad is like OMG YOU BLEW MY MIND. And the article is like OMG THIS IS SO CLEVER HOW HAS NO ONE EVER THOUGHT OF THIS BEFORE.

And I'm like, BECAUSE IT IS UTTER BOLLOCKS.

I don't blame the kid, he's a kid. But the adults going nuts over it? NO NO NO NO FUCKING NO.

1) Dread Pirate Roberts doesn't work that way in the movie. The name isn't handed down in a bloodline, like the Phantom. It's passed to a promising protegee, they dump the old crew, pick up a new one, and the former Roberts poses as the first mate and tells everyone that this really is Roberts, to help sell the identity. Heck, the end of the movie suggests that Inigo might be the next Roberts, and he sure as hell ain't Westley's son or grandson.

b) The line "As you wish" doesn't work like that, either. It wasn't a Dread Pirate Roberts thing, it was Westley's way of telling Buttercup, "I love you". Just because he was Dread Pirate Roberts for a time does not mean that the two things cross over.

Green) There's absolutely nothing cryptic about the ending! The grandfather is saying, "I love you" to his grandson in the way most meaningful to the story he was telling.

The idea that the story of Westley and Buttercup is historical rather than fantasy within the framework of the movie, that has merit. Mostly because that's the way that the original book by Goldman was written.

Maybe you could even argue that the grandson is their descendant, and that this story has been passed down through the generations. The grandfather certainly suggests as much when he says his father read it to him, and that he read it to his own son, and now he's going to read it to his grandson.

But other than that? Hogwash.

I don't know why people promote such ridiculous ideas. All I can say is clickbaiters gonna clickbait.

Divisions

It's depressing how everything becomes a battlefield now, a 'them' vs 'us' war, a 'pro' versus 'anti' thing. It might be somewhat palatable if there were two even sides that each had their own merits, but usually we get one side that's utter shit, and then there's everyone else, if we're lucky.

Politics is kind of a given, what with two party systems, but increasingly what we get is not an even match between competing ideologies, it's... well, here in New Zealand, the best I can say is it's a race to the bottom, one side is selling out as fast as they can while the other side is just fractured and incoherent, last I looked. I could be wrong, I don't usually pay attention to politics... mostly because that's the impression I get.

And America is worse, where one side is just increasingly... well, evil... but the other side has it's own bad track record, even as they try to pretend they're the good guys.

Gaming? We have Gamergate, which claims to be about journalistic integrity but is, I think, at best mostly about whining about political correctness. At worst it's about harassing women and making death threats and all that completely unwonderful stuff. If Gamergate has actually achieved any substantative gains in journalistic integrity I would love to know, because all I see is a bunch of assholes and a bunch of people who claim not to be WITH those assholes but still gather under the same banner. And then there are the people who claim to be avoiding taking sides... but honestly, seem really sympathetic to the bullshit Gamergate spins.

Then there's a group currently aggravating sci-fi fandom. Two groups actually, the Sad Puppies and the spin off, Rabid Puppies. It's unclear to pretty much everyone where the divider between the two is... and I think even for the Puppies it's not clear. It's a bit like Gamergate in that the Sad Puppies claim to be about noble things like bringing under-valued authors to public attention, etc., but all they really seem interested in is whining about 'social justice warriors' and political correctness. One of their leaders especially has a persecution complex big enough to be seen from space, having on several occasions spouted bile about how conservatives like him are oppressed by the nasty liberals, and how he and his fellow travellers live in fear of being rounded up and incarcerated... it almost makes you wonder if it's projection and that's what THEY would do to people they don't like.

As for the Rabid Puppies, they also complain about social justice warriors and all, but they just seem to want to cause havoc. Their main leader and one of their major figures each have a track record of saying some pretty horrible things.

And even World of Warcraft isn't safe. Recently Blizzard, the company that produces the game, decided that they would not be allowing flying in the current content. Ostensibly it's to make it so that players engage more with the world rather than flying over obstacles. This caused a lot of protests with some people complaining because they like flying in game and others saying it's a great idea because they like running around the map, and others who can't care less. Recently Blizzard announced that they WOULD put flying in, but as a compromise you basically have to do several activities that require exploring the world... such as doing all the quests in each zone and discovering all the major areas of the map. This does not seem to have changed the protests much, as people claim to have left the game because they can't fly (or because they reckon it's the latest in a line of issues they have with Blizzard's decisions), and there's still vitriol being flung about towards 'you anti-flying people' or 'you pro-flying people'. Thank god they don't have catchy nicknames like Sad Puppies and Gamergate...

Seriously, tonight I read a comment where a guy claimed in all apparent seriousness that Blizzard got a shock to their 'huge egos' when they realised they were wrong about flying, but because they refuse to back down they're punishing the player base by making them jump through hoops. Or something. Basically, Blizzard as a whole are assholes who hate their players.

What kind of sense does that even make? It's like some of the playerbase think they're actually at war with the company. It boggles the mind to think that they claim to love the game and yet actively hate the people that make it.

Which is not to say that I agree with everything Blizzard does, but geez, it's just a game.

But this is the world we live in, this is the path we're travelling. My way or the highway, if you're not with me then you're scum. Let's not even start on the wingnuts that twist their religion into an edifice of hate...

I can't even.

Unfriending - some thoughts

Whoa, been a while since I posted.

Earlier today I unfriended a guy on Facebook. I have mixed feelings about it, and I thought I'd unpack. Because if there's anything I can do, it's talk at length about inane shit. I'm like the Doctor, but considerably less awesome. Only one heart, not about to test whether I can regenerate, and my sonic screwdriver doesn't even change the TV channel...

Aaaanyways.

Mostly I keep my Facebook list to people I actually know. In more recent times I've expanded it out a bit to people I've met online, generally sci-fi fans who have been involved in discussions I've been part of, who have for some reason decided it was worth sending me a friend request. (I hardly ever send out requests myself, I don't want to bother people). But apart from that, mostly family or people I know from offline.

This particular guy is someone I knew from high school, so not exactly a fleeting online acquaintance. Still, we've never been friendly. Probably met twice offline since leaving high school, and sure, those encounters were relatively cordial, but... not much more. And we've not exactly clashed and had any horribly acrimonious arguments online... mostly.

I hate to say it, but my issues with him stem from his religion. We went to a Catholic high school, and while I didn't actually end up all that religious myself, he seems to have become a bit... zealous. Frankly, some of the views he's espoused would be at home with the religious right in America.

A few years ago, New Zealand went through its own ructions over marriage equality. First we had civil unions, then it became fully legal a couple of years ago. At this time, the dude had a Facebook thread about it. He was against it, of course. I got involved, tried to argue... didn't go so well. Before I gave up and... well, ok, I flounced. In my defense, he was arguing that giving equal marriage rights to gay people was the same as giving your cat the right to speak to fairies.

I still don't know what that means!

He seemed to think it meant giving them the right was pointless. For reasons. Like I said, I don't get it.

Lately, he's shared a couple of articles relating to the Planned Parenthood debacle going on in the States. Predictably, he's in the camp that believes Planned Parenthood is dissecting unborn babies for profit. I had one relatively low key discussion with one of his, shall we say, fellow travellers, which went considerably less low key when the second guy asserted that Planned Parenthood... you know what, I'm just gonna say PP from here on. So, PP were, in his words, hiding behind the mantle of 'women's health' so they could 'brutally dissect babies in the womb to maximise profits'.

I'm sorry, but when people start evangelising their conspracy theories, I tune out. Turned off notifications for that thread rather than see any more idiocy from him.

The guy from high school, though.... today, Facebook put in my feed a comment he made on someone's thread. In it, he asserted that because the PP employees had been matter-of-fact in the videos, and didn't use the usual euphemisms like 'products of conception' or 'fetal tissue', it somehow proves the point. Because, ZOMG, they talked about harvesting eyes and livers!

And I'm thinking... well, DUH. As far as tone? They thought they were talking to legitimate PROFESSIONALS involved in MEDICAL RESEARCH. How else are they supposed to talk? They were talking business with their peers (they thought). Just not the kind of business done for profit.

And as for being specific about organs and stuff... again, DUH. You can't test for brain chemistry in a foot. Scientists are gonna want to be specific about what they're doing. Then again, having no clue what they're talking about is pretty much par for the discourse.

But it was at that point I realised... there's no reasoning with that level of lunacy. No talking to people who sincerely want to believe that anyone would and could 'brutally dissect babies in the womb'. That kind of world view is just beyond fucked up.

And I'm better off without it.

Like I said on Facebook, I don't mind differing opinions, but I can do without regurgitations of hateful nonsense.

Of course, if a PROPER and THOROUGH investigation by LEGAL authorities reveals that PP are as bad as accused, I will be very contrite. I can admit when I'm wrong.

But I still wouldn't friend that guy again.

The latest in Sad Puppy Madness

So about those Puppies (and sorry to anyone who has no clue what I'm blathering about yet again).

To put it in general terms, a bunch of people have now decided they want to boycott a major sci fi publisher. In part this seems to be because they don't like the publisher anyways, but the stated reasoning is given as an objection to something one of the art directors said (more or less referenced in my previous post). Basically, they reckon she insulted them.

There is some debate on the specifics. *cough*understatement*cough*

And so they want an apology. Which they got, but they don't feel it was appropriately worded. So some of them want her fired, or think she should have been fired, and some... the publisher has a few other staff who have been openly critical, if not as incendiary, and so some of the group may want them fired as well.

It's getting ugly. Uglier. Whatever.

I won't get into the wheres and whyfores, let alone the whereasmuches, but there are a few things I wanted to note after spending a few hours as part of a thread on Facebook relating to this palaver.

One, the Puppies have adopted a few new memes. Such as 'she insulted us on company time!', which is... bizarre? How would they know what her break schedule is? I'll concede that the egregious comment occurred in relation to a post relating to one of the publisher's upcoming releases, albeit on an official press release or company communique, but... company time? Really?

The other one is to claim that she personally insulted a particular person who spent years fighting actual neo-Nazis in the struggle against apartheid. Except I'm not sure anyone outside their group, let alone the lady at the centre of the dispute, even knows who the dude is. I didn't. To top it all off, he doesn't even claim to be PART of their group, just supporting from the sidelines... so how was he personally insulted, anyways? Even if you accept that she did call the group 'neo-Nazis', he's not part of the group, right?

One genius claimed apartheid was in South America. I just really hope that was an autocorrect failure.

Also, do not ask for proof that he did the fighting. Just... don't.

The other thing I really want to note is the absurdity of the boycott itself. So.... you're not buying their books. Some of you wouldn't anyways, either because you have a grudge against the publisher to begin with, or against some of their authors, or you reckon they just don't publish anything you like.

To those people, you're trying to punish them by not doing something you were never gonna do anyways. Congratulations on achieving less than nothing.

For everyone else... so you're not buying their books. As opposed to all the other days you were not buying their books. Unless you're someone who buys a book a day, but who the hell has that kinda time and money? So anyways, you're not doing something that... say, anywhere from 50-90% of the time, you weren't gonna do it anyways. Congratulations on achieving nothing. It's more than less than nothing, but it's still nothing.

Seriously, if they can stir up the greater mass of readers out their to join them in their batshittery, I will be impressed. Mostly, I suspect they won't make much difference.

The other bizarre part is that, on at least one blog, they're getting people to take photos of their collection of books from this publisher to, I dunno, demonstrate what good customers they are? Or were. One guy sent in a picture of two books. A whole two books. Man, I can feel the bottom line plummet, losing a customer so dedicated and loyal.

On the flipside, some people have a lot of books. Like, a LOT. Shelves and shelves worth. They have been good customers.... and if it were me, I would be looking at such photos and thinking, "Well, we already have their money anyways".

The whole thing is a farce.

Oh, and another thing I noted from the thread? It's really hard to take seriously people whose argument consists of "You assholes called me names!" and other such potkettles. Basically everything they accuse other people of doing, they do themselves, often in the accusation. Also, on top of that, it seems like they're coopting ideas and language from their opponents. It's weird.

And lastly... I mocked one guy for being a twit, and he told me he did not find me funny.

Somehow, that being the whole point seemed to escape him.

Some days, it's like being in a Monty Python skit.

Standing up

DISCLAIMER: I speak for no one but myself, the pixie folk of the Lost Wilds, the Five And A Half Kings of Ennui, the Dark Riders of the Widdershins Plain, and a wombat. No, not that wombat, the other one. None of them asked me to.

After a small internal debate I thought I'd post this. Mostly the debate was because a good chunk of my Facebook friends, which, as a whole, is most likely a good chunk of my blog readership, will have no idea what I'm talking about unless they've followed where I comment on Facebook. Even then I've not said much on this issue. So.  It is time.

If you don't understand, don't worry about it. Consider yourself fortunate.

Here goes.

I stand by Irene Gallo.

Perhaps I would not have said the same thing as she said it, but it's essentially the same sort of thing I've said. I do not disagree with the essence of it.

There are two right wing groups, Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies, and they are calling for an end, not to social justice in science fiction, but to what they see as a glut of social justice messages in science fiction.

(Personally, I suspect it's a perspective thing, that they see an overload because there's simply more than previously. It's like rain in a desert... no, wait, let's go SF with this. It's raining on Dune and they're sandworms.)

Are they 'unrepentantly racist, sexist, homophobic'? One or two certainly are. Others have made some statements and comments I see as very dodgy, skirting the lines here and there. Others certainly scoff - and some scoff quite vigorously! - at the concepts and precepts of social justice. And it seems like a number simply don't give a tinker's cuss about social justice and are perfectly happy to let the bad actors keep acting badly. Others are more concerned about not being called racist for being associated with racists, rather than not associating with racists.

Remember, the true evil is not racism, it's calling someone racist. Oh, the horror, the soul-searing, festering wound of being called a, gasp, bigot.

Wherever they fall on that spectrum, they are unrepentant about that.

Some may have expressed misgivings with the darker portion of the overall movement, but it hasn't really led to much self analysis that I've seen. They still cling to what they believe the Puppies stand for.

I envy that self-delusion.

As for the charge of bringing in Gamergate... not going to argue that one. I've certainly seen tweets and post from prominent Puppies that constitute reaching out.

As for the quality of the works on the ballot, that is a matter of opinion. I haven't heard much good, but I haven't read the works myself.

The response from Tor is... not surprising? An attempt at PR and damage control, in the craptastic way that only a corporation can do. Psst, hey, Tor, most of them already hate you for their own bullshit reasons. This doesn't help, but it does undermine Ms Gallo. Well done! Two thumbs up!

And I stand by all of that.

So I stand by Irene Gallo.

Game on.

First little steps

So I tried joining an informal work out class tonight.

I aten't dead.

We'll see how next week goes.

((Yes, for those familiar with Discworld, I did make this blog post just to make that joke.))

The Knight of Flame and Bone

And so the Knight set forth. He -

“The Knight of Flame and Bone.”

I beg your pardon?

“The Knight of Flame and Bone. It's my full title.”

It's a bit of a mouthful, isn't it? This is just the start of the story, there'll be plenty of time to get into that. We don't want to overwork the reader just yet, do we? Let's ease them into it.

“But how will they know I'm the Knight of Flame and Bone if you don't tell them?”

You can introduce yourself to someone later.

“Like who? It's just me here.”

Well, I don't know yet. We haven't got that far.

“Well, hurry up then.”

Right. As I was saying, the Knight set -

“Flame and Bone. Remember the title.”

Look, what kind of armour do you wear, hmmm?

“Oh, you know. Knightly stuff.”

Lots of metal plates? Steel or something like?

“Well, yes.”

No bones?

“That wouldn't make very good armour, now would it? Give me good, strong steel any day!”

No bones. Is your armour, or maybe your weapon or shield... are they decorated with bones? Or skulls? Even in motif?

“Ummm... nooooo...”

What about flames? Is there a particular flame motif? Is your armour the colour of fire? Is the blade of your sword orange, or edged with jagged waves like tongues of dancing flame? How about your shield? Any flames there?

“Um. No, no, no.... and no.”

So you are the Knight of Flame and Bone... but there are no visible flames or bones at all.

“I suppose not.”

You are, in fact, only a man in plate armour, riding on a horse. You do have a horse, I assume?

“Oh yes, of course! What kind of knight would I be without a horse?”

Indeed. So, to sum up, you are in fact indistinguishable from any other knight at all. Nobody would know just by looking at you that you are, in fact, the Knight of Flame and Bone. You look like any other ordinary, common or garden knight..

“Well, when you put it like that...”

Shall I continue, then?

“... Alright.”

Ahem. And so the Knight set forth. He -

“Why are you doing that, anyway?”

… Doing what?

“Starting the story like that. 'And so'? What do you mean, 'and so'? You're making it sound like you're carrying on from a previous event, but the story just started! There aren't any events yet!”

There won't be at this rate, either. Look, it's a literary device. Now, if you don't mind, I -

“And 'set forth'? What does that even mean? It sounds like there were three people having dinner and a friend popped round so they needed another place setting.”

It's not that kind of 'forth'. Setting forth means you begin a journey.

“Oh, I see. Why not just say that then?”

Because 'set forth' is more concise. This is a short story, after all. At least, it's supposed to be.

“I don't think I like your tone.”

Oh, really? And what are you going to do about it, hmmm? I'm not a character, you can't touch me.

“Well, I... I could refuse to do the story. You can't have a story without your main character, and that's me!”

That's beginning to sound very appealing...

“What was that?”

Oh, nothing... Are you quite finished? Can we go on?

“Well... If you like.”

Right. Let's see...

He sat proud upon his steed, and -

“That's not the beginning!”

What's your problem now?

“That's not how it begins! It should have that 'and so' and 'set forth' stuff.”

I've already said that twice now. It saves time if I just carry on where we left off.

“Ah. Gotcha. But what's with that steed business? I don't have a steed. I think I'd know if I did.”

It's your horse, you.... 'steed' means your horse.

“His name isn't Steed. It's Jacob.”

Jacob. Your horse's name is Jacob.

“That's right.”

Any particular reason? Usually a knight's horse has a grand name like Gallant or Maximus.

“You'd have to ask him, he chose it.”

He chose... no, never mind. I don't want to know.

“Is something wrong?”

Yes. You keep interrupting.

“Well, if you'd tell it right I wouldn't have to.”

Tell it right?! Look, who's the narrator here?

“Well, you...”

Have you ever done any narration?

“Well, no. Not professionally, anyways. I do have this funny story I tell around the campfires. It's about this turnip, see...”

SO, since you are not, in fact, the narrator, and you have never BEEN the narrator, don't you think you might want to leave the narrating to... oh, I don't know... the narrator? Hmm?

“... I suppose.”

Good. You just stick to your dialog. One more word out of you at the wrong time and you'll find yourself riding off a cliff.

“You can't do that!”

I'm the narrator, remember? What I say happens, happens.

“But I'm far too smart to just ride off a cliff!”

That is debatable.

“Oi! There's no call to be rude! And what about Jacob?”

What about Jacob?

“No horse is just going to run off a cliff. It's contrary to all survival instinct!”

Maybe you're being chased. Horses tend to panic easily in high stress situations, and you would be distracted... It could happen.

“Nice try! There are no chases in this story!”

There could be. Or perhaps you'd prefer to have an encounter with bees? That would probably do it. I wouldn't think that having bees crawling around inside your armour, stinging you, would be too nice. 

“Now you're just reaching.”

You know what? I've had enough of this.

On the far side of the world, two gods fought. Furiously they strove to overcome the other, pitting vast strength against vast strength. Such was the force of their battle that it shook the earth to its core, causing ruptures and volcanoes to occur across all the known lands. The shifting of the tortured earth tore at a previously undisturbed fault line, opening a chasm beneath the Knight of Flame and Bone. Down he fell, still astride his steed, Jacob, only to land in a river of molten rock spewing up from the deepest regions of the earth.

What do you think of that then?

“It's a bit unlikely, isn't it?”

A bit unl... you're up to your armpits in molten lava and all you can say is, 'a bit unlikely'?

“Well, yes.”

… Why aren't you burning in agony?

“I'm the Knight of Flame and Bone, remember? Fire doesn't bother me.”

But your armour must be melting, surely.

“Nope. Fire resistant. Would have to be, wouldn't it? Imagine I'm fighting a dragon and he breathes on me, right, all fiery like an inferno. I'd survive, but I'd be stark naked. I can't fight dragons naked!”

But you never said... You said your armour was ordinary steel!

“Well, it IS steel. It's just enchanted. You didn't ask if it was enchanted.”

I'd at least think you'd be a bit more worried about Jacob.

“Why? He's fine.”

He fell into lava!

“Yes? What's your point? He's a pyrostallion. He was born in a volcano. Lava doesn't bother him. He's having a nice swim.”

This is the first I've heard of it.

“You never asked.”

But still... a pyrostallion? That's the silliest thing yet.

“What else would a fireproof knight ride? Imagine I'm fighting a dragon and he breathes on me, right -”

Yes, yes, I get the idea. Well, I guess there's only one thing for it then. I'm leaving. Goodbye.

“Hey, wait! Where are you going?”

“Are you still there?”

“Hello?”

“Well, that's great. Just great. Now who's going to sign off my timesheet?”