Just a quick note
Nov. 6th, 2004 02:28 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
msagaraFor those of you in need of a chuckle, and aren't already reading the sporadic LJ posts of ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
pnh, take a quick look at this one: http://www.livejournal.com/users/pnh/5026.html. Big snerk at the comment about being hated, which, in GEnie terminology was an unfortunate snarf on my part, as I was drinking water at the time.
yhlee, I haven't forgotten the question you asked about category romance and the attempt to market certain lines towards a more mainstream audience -- I'll get right on that tomorrow. I'd answer off the top of my head, but my head is flat about now, and while I've been doing some research into the whole history of romance as a genre, I really don't know enough about it to answer any question authoritatively; I can give my take, but it's not on as firm a ground as the usual SF/F takes would be.
I'm coming out of paralysis at the moment. The one thing that the internet offers in this regard is speed; the speed of information, the gathering of it, the discussion about it -- things happen more quickly here than they do in real life. Not that this isn't real life, but you know what I mean. Someone posted an excellent comment about, for instance, the concept of abortion as a social justice issue -- and I've been thinking about it, mulling it over.forodwaith asked why Canada is more liberal, socially, than the US, and I'm also mulling that over. I think we're secretly in love with lawyers, since 99% of our politicians seem to have been practicing lawyers at one point in their career. Yes, I know -- how strange is that?
But I also think, at heart, that we'd rather have someone really, intimidatingly smart at the helm. Our cult of personality PM was Pierre Elliot Trudeau, a man know for his razor wit and his intellect. Oh, and his arrogance, and his ability to condescend you into an early death. We know, by default -- and yes, gross generalization here, but it's 2:30 in the morning, and I've been line-editing all night -- that we're not up to the task of governance because we don't know enough, or are not inherently smart enough to do a good job, but gosh, it would be nice to have someone at the helm who is, so smart isn't a threat in the same way it sometimes seems to be for more of the US electorate than the Canadian electorate.
Also -- and I'm not terribly representative in this regard (although it could be said that no single individual is representative of an entire plurality, regardless of whether or not they've been elected to represent that plurality) -- many Canadians really don't like fuss, bother, and change. Change, when it comes via lawyers, comes slowly and with a lot of documentation and words; change, when it comes through people outside of those venues? It's often too fast. I've never woken up after a depressing election to wonder what country I'm actually in. Otoh, if I were living in Alberta, I might <wry g>.
And last? If it's greedy bastards, you at least know what kind of trouble you're in for. If it's someone outside of that -- if it's a theocrat masquerading as a lawyer or an actor masquerading as a lawyer (lawyers being, as I mentioned, most of our politicians), well... you don't know quite what they'll do. People understand a certain type of power-mongering, and a certain type of political patronage -- they may despise it, but it has some logical struts beneath it (see: greed). But people who do things for reasons of faith, who do things that don't have a logical or sensible trail behind it -- they're harder to predict and harder to watch out for.
I have been line-editing, and realizing that, in fact, contemporary and anecdotal though my voice for this book is, it still requires one to read all of the words.
pnh, take a quick look at this one: http://www.livejournal.com/users/pnh/5026.html. Big snerk at the comment about being hated, which, in GEnie terminology was an unfortunate snarf on my part, as I was drinking water at the time.yhlee, I haven't forgotten the question you asked about category romance and the attempt to market certain lines towards a more mainstream audience -- I'll get right on that tomorrow. I'd answer off the top of my head, but my head is flat about now, and while I've been doing some research into the whole history of romance as a genre, I really don't know enough about it to answer any question authoritatively; I can give my take, but it's not on as firm a ground as the usual SF/F takes would be.I'm coming out of paralysis at the moment. The one thing that the internet offers in this regard is speed; the speed of information, the gathering of it, the discussion about it -- things happen more quickly here than they do in real life. Not that this isn't real life, but you know what I mean. Someone posted an excellent comment about, for instance, the concept of abortion as a social justice issue -- and I've been thinking about it, mulling it over.
forodwaith asked why Canada is more liberal, socially, than the US, and I'm also mulling that over. I think we're secretly in love with lawyers, since 99% of our politicians seem to have been practicing lawyers at one point in their career. Yes, I know -- how strange is that? But I also think, at heart, that we'd rather have someone really, intimidatingly smart at the helm. Our cult of personality PM was Pierre Elliot Trudeau, a man know for his razor wit and his intellect. Oh, and his arrogance, and his ability to condescend you into an early death. We know, by default -- and yes, gross generalization here, but it's 2:30 in the morning, and I've been line-editing all night -- that we're not up to the task of governance because we don't know enough, or are not inherently smart enough to do a good job, but gosh, it would be nice to have someone at the helm who is, so smart isn't a threat in the same way it sometimes seems to be for more of the US electorate than the Canadian electorate.
Also -- and I'm not terribly representative in this regard (although it could be said that no single individual is representative of an entire plurality, regardless of whether or not they've been elected to represent that plurality) -- many Canadians really don't like fuss, bother, and change. Change, when it comes via lawyers, comes slowly and with a lot of documentation and words; change, when it comes through people outside of those venues? It's often too fast. I've never woken up after a depressing election to wonder what country I'm actually in. Otoh, if I were living in Alberta, I might <wry g>.
And last? If it's greedy bastards, you at least know what kind of trouble you're in for. If it's someone outside of that -- if it's a theocrat masquerading as a lawyer or an actor masquerading as a lawyer (lawyers being, as I mentioned, most of our politicians), well... you don't know quite what they'll do. People understand a certain type of power-mongering, and a certain type of political patronage -- they may despise it, but it has some logical struts beneath it (see: greed). But people who do things for reasons of faith, who do things that don't have a logical or sensible trail behind it -- they're harder to predict and harder to watch out for.
I have been line-editing, and realizing that, in fact, contemporary and anecdotal though my voice for this book is, it still requires one to read all of the words.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Canada vs US on liberalism
Date: 2004-11-06 10:07 am (UTC)Can the comparative/international political scientist chime in? I'm not sure I'd agree with the lawyers argument - that would suggest, since your rate of lawyers-in-politics is higher than the US (only about 2/3 here), that change in Canada should be SLOWER than in the United States.
On the other hand, Canadian social policy is more liberal than American all the way back through the interwar years. I'm going to attribute at least part of the difference to the nature of the federal units in the two countries. US units are generally quite similar - they don't often differ too markedly on most social, economic, cultural etc. criteria. Canada, on the other hand, is QUITE different. The presence of Quebec, whose industrial/economic and cultural profile is a lot different than the others, and the federal/parliamentary nature of the political system (which encourages compromise/collaboration across multiple province-based parties to form governments), creates an environment where social benefits can be used as goodies to buy cooperation. It keeps rather wealth Quebec in the federation, and satisfies the needs of other groups. [I'm having serious recollections of the health care system being largely the result of a compromise between a Quebec-based party and another major party. NO CLUE what source I'm pulling from though - Huber and Stephens 2001?]
There's also the prominent fact that in the post-war period, most of the issues that divide US conservatives and liberals (particularly the highly salient foreign policy/'role in the world' ones that define the conservatives) are largely absent from Canadian politics. One of the advantages of not being the neighborhood gorilla, I suppose. Without the extensive defense policy commitments, more funds are available for social policy. Once these policies are in place, they create a constituency in favor of their continuation. With basic bread and butter issues securely removed from the political field because of this (while they're still major issues in the US), Canadians were able to shift their interests to additional questions which tend to flow logically from the policies provided. (i.e., is abortion a 'health care service'?) The general result of moving the bread-and-butter, basic-subsistence-level questions out of political discourse is that the elements which define conservative and liberal - role of the state in the economy, public (vs private) provision of social services, etc. - are no longer as prominent and discussion shifts to other things.
Anyway.... 'Tis enough impromptu lecture for today. :-) I'm curious to know the take of other Canadians though - are my largely-institutional arguments out of touch with practical Canadian politics?
Re: Canada vs US on liberalism
Date: 2004-11-07 02:35 am (UTC)Re: Canada vs US on liberalism
Date: 2004-11-07 09:29 am (UTC)::cringes - is uncertain whether this is a compliment or something else::
I make NO claims to be an expert on Canadian politics or the Canadian political system, or even on how the US got to its current position. These remarks are my quasi-informed speculation only.
Re: Canada vs US on liberalism
Date: 2004-11-07 12:07 pm (UTC)::cringes - is uncertain whether this is a compliment or something else::
I would see it in every possible way as a compliment -- for people who find multisyllabic words, and their existence and correct use, to be soothing <wry g>. There's a sense that there's an active dislike for "intellectuals" in the US in some quarters at the moment, and the definition of intellectual has slid to some extent.
Re: Canada vs US on liberalism
Date: 2004-11-07 01:04 pm (UTC)While intellectuals in general might have a bad name right now, people in my line of work - political scientists - were MUCH more out of favor four years ago, when the inadequacy of our exit polling practices was exposed. :-) Back then, it wasn't safe to admit my line of work in public. Now, people all just assume that like all university professors I'm a radical leftist who's voting for Kerry anyway, so I'm safe again. ::vbg::
Re: Canada vs US on liberalism
Date: 2004-11-07 08:35 pm (UTC)I actually rather used to enjoy reading our early-1970s encyclopedia when I was younger, at least when I was in an pinch and hadn't gotten to the library in a while. Not as fond of ship rigging as you are, but I learned all sorts of use(less)ful stuff. Now I get paid to entertain undergraduates by reciting it several days a week. :-) And my mother told me reading the encyclopedia would never pay the bills... heh little does she know. :-P
Re: Canada vs US on liberalism
Date: 2004-11-07 08:44 pm (UTC)(Yes, hmm, I do like erasers. Why do you ask??)
Just wish editing was available on comments too, sigh. Same post, just better.
I really like the archaic words in an Unabridged.
My sister often gives me those calendars of lost and archaic words, too. The phrases suggest a whole world of lost technical knowledge, lost industries, ways of doing things that aren't necessary any more. Or have remained very obscure.
For a fantasy writer, invaluable for setting off the brain in the right track to ask yourself questions about how people are surviving, how they're making things. Like reading archeology. You may not be able to track down exactly that obscure word you know must be around regarding cloth dyes, or tanning leather, or whatever, but it does set you thinking about the demands of an odd industry.
Such as, early electroplating required cyanide. Nasty stuff!
Re: Canada vs US on liberalism
Date: 2004-11-08 06:54 am (UTC)In Guyana, you are legally prohibited from petitioning the Ombudsman if you're dead.
It's in their constitution, I'm serious. I spent my summer reading constitutions from countries most people have never heard of. I have NO idea how one might make use of that, but just trying to *imagine* the situations under which such a provision would be invoked, or the situations which may have caused it to be put into the constitutions in the first place, is certainly kind of fun.
I'm also a bit intrigued by a bit in a failed Albanian draft that gave the constitutional right to have household pets, provided the pets were appropriate for the dwelling and were treated fairly -- thus implying that pets have a constitutional right to fair treatment...
Re: Canada vs US on liberalism
Date: 2004-11-09 12:09 am (UTC)In Guyana, you are legally prohibited from petitioning the Ombudsman if you're dead.
Umm, no wonder I'm flashing on Laurell Hamilton's vampire executioner and vampires, and werewolves, and their legal rights, or lack thereof??
Hmm indeed on the Albanian one. Just wondering if we're back to the werewolf thing again! But maybe it's just that sme of those Albanian pets, in the majority opinion, don't really belong in dwellings at all...
Re: Canada vs US on liberalism
Date: 2004-11-09 07:52 am (UTC)Re: Canada vs US on liberalism
Date: 2004-11-07 08:31 pm (UTC)It was a flatout compliment. I know, I know, it's cruel of me.
But I cited your comments because I liked them.
Also, you're more informed/expert on topic than anybody else I had conveniently available to consult.
(Take that as a warning of my politically impoverished state, if you like.)
As I recall,
Talk about wandering off and forgetting what the original point was... trying to wade through 4 -5 daily & multi-link & also fascinating postings on everything under the sun but mostly political horrors--bad.
Bad not-writer.
Wandering round lj is as nasty as handing me a dictionary. Or an encyclopedia, or any of that sort of writer's crack.
Oh golly, oh dear, please NOT the 1914 Edition Webster's Unabridged with all the antique chemistry phrases and the diagrams on ship's rigging!
Nooooooo!!