#Should note that when I make changes for realism it's not because I think worldbuilding should be hyper realistic to be good but because

[serpentface]

What does the yotici life cycle look like now?

Fairly similar, here's a generalized idea

I Did kind of drop the sessile+asexual polyp mobile+sexual fish alternating generations because it doesn't Really change anything besides sounding vaguely interesting. Fish reproduction is wild enough as-is.

Their eggs are laid in a stringy mass that requires a root to the sea floor (coral, tough kelps, rocks, sticks, etc) and light currents to keep them oxygenated. These egg masses are strong and can bend and sway fairly significantly without coming apart, but will be broken by strong currents and require a sheltered environment to survive. This is the basis of a Garden, an engineered ecosystem designed to protect the eggs, provide substantial and consistent nourishment for the young and resting places and shelter for adults, and additionally function as cultural and social centers.

Larvae are tiny and born with a yolk sac attached to sustain them. They metamorphose into a 'predatory' phase in which they feed on zooplankton and organic debris. These phases are tiny and poor swimmers, wholly reliant on the sheltered environment of the garden for safety and consistent food sources. Those swept out have very little chance of longterm survival. The VAST majority of yotici that hatch at all die in their larval stages.

Most of their anatomy is fully developed as a 'yotling', in which they are much stronger swimmers, school together, and are primarily predatory. Yotlings feed on plankton and other small animals, but their most important food source is their own species' eggs. This is a natural behavior for yotici, and much of the function of the garden is to provide this dependable, clustered food source for their young. The survival benefits of most of their reproductive output being sacrificed to these viable young with a fairly strong chance of survival vastly outweigh the loss, given the vast majority of yotici larvae who hatch to begin with die without ever reaching this phase. Yotlings have much lower mortality rates than the larvae, but a majority will die to predation. They're also frequent bycatch in fisheries and are widely eaten by landdwelling peoples. During the yotling phase, they're about 4-8 inches long.

Their beak starts to develop in the juvenile stage, during which they are 'weaned' out of predatory behavior and start consuming algae and marine plants. They instinctively school around adult yotici and follow them to food sources, usually eating algae that grows around the tougher foods the adults can handle. This tends to be the point in which active parental protection begins, but few yotici cultures conceptualize these juveniles as full people or develop personalized bonds with them, as their mortality rate is still fairly high. During the juvenile phase, they're about 8-14 inches long.

A yotici 'child' has all its base adult anatomy developed, including its tentacles, and looks like a miniature adult. They can eat tougher foods and join the adults in consuming seagrass. This is the point in which they are semi-equivalent to a human infant, rapidly learning and picking up on language and beginning to communicate. Fully active parental care and bonding will occur during this period (the Exact cultural marker of when this starts can vary) and they are conceptualized as people. Diminishingly few yotici actually survive to this phase, but those who do have a very good chance of lasting to adulthood. The child phase starts at about 1-2 ft in length.

At this point they grow steadily until sexual maturity, and will continue to grow (much, much more slowly) throughout the rest of their lives. Sexual maturity takes a VERY long time, usually about 20 years from hatching. An adult yotici generally ranges in size from 12-18 ft, with outstanding or very long lived individuals passing 25 (the World Record would be in the mid 30 ft range). A yotici who survives to reproductive adulthood has excellent chances at a long life, and yotici are by far the longest living sophonts. A lucky individual can crest 200 years.

[your-brilliant-lady-m]

Part 4 - Basic Concepts of Miraculous Ladybug: Glamour

You can call it however you want: kid's show logic, superhero disguise logic, magical girl show logic, cartoon laws, suspension of disbelief, etc. But the fact that nobody recognises Marinette, Adrien and others when they are suited up IS NOT BAD WRITING. It's one of the main laws of this genre. That's not because characters are stupid, okay? So, being frustrated that everyone in the show acts stupid about this "wearing a mask that covers only eyes" trope is strange. This criticism is not valid or fair.

But, this trope has to make sense in-universe as a worldbuilding and narrative element.

Miraculous doesn't give us much direct information on how glamour works. And in this case, I think we need both SHOW and TELL. Because if you don't establish the glamour rules clearly, you are going to run into problems and create unfortunate implications with your storytelling choices.

Appearance

Miraculous obviously gives our heroes magical glamour. In "Lady WiFi" we find out that masks can't be taken off. It's magic. No other explanation is needed.

Miraculous can slightly change the appearance of users (eyes, face shape, height and hairstyles). People can identify and notice the hairstyles of heroes (numerous Ladybug wigs, statue in Copycat). Jagged Stone points out the change of hair when he mistakes Chloe for Ladybug ("Antibug"). But it's just a costume. There is no magic that prevents Jagged from understanding that Chloe isn't Ladybug. So, how does it work? But it's forgivable because it's cartoon logic. Suspension of disbelief works here, I suppose. I won't judge this too harshly.

Glamour also obviously prevents people from making a connection that Marinette and Ladybug have identical hairstyles. So people know that Ladybug wears her hair in pigtails, but magic does not allow them to notice similarities.

Another important question. Does glamour work on Kwamis? Can they see who is behind the mask?

New York Special makes it clear that magic does not affect robots and they can see through glamour. Does that mean that Markov, AI built by Max, knows the identities of Ladybug and Chat Noir? And it's never addressed.

Plagg in "Frightningale" says that holders can subconsciously choose their superhero appearance. This is actually pretty interesting and I like this idea a lot. Except the show is not consistent with this. The transformation of Master Fu looks identical to Nathalie's. And we have seen how different from each other Ladybug and Black Cat holders looked in the past. At the same time, Master Fu and Nino have different takes on Turtle superhero suit.

Age Glamour

Does age glamour exist? Do people see Ladybug, Chat Noir and other heroes as adults even when they look like teenagers to the audience (their height and build are smaller even when they are transformed)? Is that why no one ever questions the fact that children nearly die on a daily basis?

I mentioned unfortunate implications earlier. Well, this is where they come into play. Let's talk about "Copycat". A lot of people discussed it before me, so I won't bore you with details.

When I watched "Copycat" for the first time Theo's crush on Ladybug didn't bother me, because I thought that he sees Ladybug as his peer, a girl who is about 20-23 years old. Theo is an artist, his character design is that of an adult. He has his own studio, its appearance indicates that he did serious commissions in the past. The guy has no idea that Ladybug is like 13.

But then we get "Heroes' Day" and "Ladybug". And Hawkmoth calls them "kids", which means that there is no age glamour. Others see Ladybug and Chat Noir as teenagers. Perhaps, other Miraculous users aren't affected by age glamour. Therefore regular people see all heroes as adults but other heroes are able to guess their age more or less correctly. But you must spell this thing out because the audience can interpret "Copycat" differently. If there is no age glamour, then Theo is crushing on a teenage girl and he is fully aware of this fact. And this doesn't look good for your show.

The "No Age Glamour" theory is further confirmed in "Sapotis" where Alya just straight up analyses voice recordings and says that Ladybug is a girl their age. If glamour exists then it should also cover technology. Kwami can't be photographed. Face and voice recognition software shouldn't be able to analyse transformed superheroes and detect their identities in any way.

Besides, after "Sapotis" Alya should definitely be sure that Ladybug is not 5000 years old (also not an adult), especially after she wore Miraculous herself and was one door away from detransformed Ladybug.

SEASON 4 UPDATE! There's no age glamour after all.

In "Furious Fu" Su Han calls Chat Noir a child without knowing his identity. It means that everyone knows their superheroes are teenagers. "Copycat" can't be saved from that, uh, subtext anymore. No one questions the danger of their job or the balance of their lives outside of the mask. No one doubts their competence after "Origins" ever again. No one becomes annoyed after being bossed around by two teenagers in spandex. You had many opportunities to drop these details into the narrative. Someone could have been akumatized over this (I will not be ordered around by some magical kids!).

I don't know why writers decided not to use at least this idea and slightly adjust "Copycat" if they got rid of the age glamour completely. It can be explained as kid's show logic, but unfortunately, I'm reluctant to do it. If many characters sympathise with akuma victims on-screen, why not with the teenage superheroes who must fight them?

New York Special had this weird focus on collateral damage out of nowhere (the damage done by sentimonster Robostus) and yet it has 0 effect on the main story. No one in Paris is pissed that their 2 teenage protectors weren't there.

Ironically, "Furious Fu" and that one remark made by Su Han also created unfortunate implications for other moments in the show. Just hear me out. Apparently, Jagged Stone wrote a "thank you" song for Ladybug knowing that she is 13-15 year old child back in "Pixelator". Fandom is more than happy to roast Lila for lying about saving Jagged Stone's cat and him writing her a "thank you" song. Fandom claims that Lila's tale could harm Jagged's reputation, when he wrote a song for teenage Ladybug several weeks prior. Meanwhile, in-universe this lie is 100% believable.

If we put on "realism glasses", then both this whole song situation and Theo's crush in "Copycat" have uncomfortable implications. However, the show's canon can't be viewed and criticised through "realism glasses". I admit that bits and pieces of my criticisms are affected by these "glasses", but, ultimately, I'm trying to be fair and concentrate only on things that can't be justified by "cartoon logic and worldbuilding".

Could the existence of age glamour solve this problem of unfortunate implications and other concerns mentioned above? YES. Is it better for the narrative? YES. Is essential for the story? NOT QUITE. Could the absence of age glamour be called an irredeemable storytelling flaw? NO.

Disclaimer: On a side note, only older audience can notice these implications. Children, the target audience, most likely won't understand this subtext simply because they don't have enough experience. So, perhaps, this criticism is unfair, because these moments only look weird to me as an adult. It's like an adult joke in a cartoon that you don't get until you reach a certain age.

There's nothing technically wrong with adult writing a "thank you" song for a teenager. It's just an expression of gratitude. However, unfortunately, we live in a world, where adults normally wouldn't write songs for teens to express gratitude only. In real life similar actions would imply pedophilia and would be actively scorned by the public. No one would risk their reputation like that even if their intentions were genuinely pure and sincere. But this show can't be viewed through "realism glasses", because it's a cartoon and in certain cases we as the audience must use suspension of disbelief and pretend that certain things are possible for plot to happen.

Su Han also wants to give Ladybug and Black Cat to adults. Why didn't Master Fu do this then? Writers don't give us any explanation. Throughout the show we never question this up until the moment it's revealed that adults don't have time-limited powers. Then comes "Furious Fu". Story suddenly becomes self-aware here. Because apparently nothing prevented Fu from giving the most powerful Miraculous to adults who won't have time limit and will be more effective against Hawkmoth (see part 3 for more details).

I have a very good example of Age Glamour done right. It works in the story. There is no confusion or unfortunate implications. There is like one plothole connected to the glamour (it's been years and I still can't forgive them for Cornelia and Caleb) but otherwise, it's a pretty solid example of both show and tell. Clearly, writers wanted to avoid uncomfortable implications which are present in "Copycat". I am talking about W.I.T.C.H. comic books and animated series.

If you are not familiar with it, I'll give you a brief explanation. The story follows 5 girls, the Guardians of Kandrakar who are chosen to protect their world and parallel ones from evil. They receive magical powers from the amulet known as the Heart of Kandrakar. Their powers are based on elements: fire, water, earth, air and energy. Our main characters are about 13-15 years old. In the animated series they are younger and they attend middle school, making them 12-14 years old. But the transformation makes them look 18-20. They look like young women to each other and to other people. At the same time, people can recognise them, their looks and voice don't change. Most people don't know that they are really teenagers when they are not transformed and these people don't know that magic can make them look older. That's why everyone treats Guardians like adults when they are transformed. Comics establish this fact in the very beginning. In first issues characters state that they look older, we are also shown this multiple times.

In fact, one of the first side plots revolves around the fact that Irma uses her powers to sneak into the disco club to meet up with her crush. Irma is 13 at the beginning of the series, she is a high school freshman. Her crush, Andrew Hornby is a senior guy 17-18 years old. Irma has liked him for a long time and wants to impress him, so she decides to be clever about this. She transforms into her Guardian form of the 18-year-old girl, hides her wings, sneaks out to the club after her parents are asleep without any problem, and meets Andrew, who obviously doesn't recognise Irma in this girl who looks about his age. Smitten Andrew offers her a ride and 13-year-old Irma doesn't understand the implication of that offer, so she accepts. And, obviously, he decides that she is interested in more than just a ride home, since she agreed, and the comic implies that he fully intended for them to have sex in the backseat of his car. But Irma understands the implication only when Andrew tries to kiss her. She panics and turns him into a frog. And she actually pulls this "I need to look mature" trick more than once over the course of the series.

It's not the only situation where this age difference is handled well and makes sense. People who know the main characters in everyday life remark on their older appearance during transformation. Sometimes people flirt with Guardians when they are transformed. In one of the side-novels centred around Cornelia, she is worried that the prince of the realm they helped to save from famine would try to marry her. That never happens, but Cornelia actually brainstorms with her friends about how to tell the prince that she is really 15.

There are many other plot points where this happens, but I think that you got the idea. I really like how "Age Glamour" was handled in W.I.T.C.H.

How do we fix this? Create the situations where people offhandedly mention "Age Glamour" in the presence of Marinette or Adrien, use Kwami for this.

"Don't worry, dear. Chat Noir and Ladybug are adults, who know what they are doing. I am sure that they will handle this. "

Theo could say: "Oh, I wonder which university Ladybug goes to?"

"So, does that mean that other people see us as grown-ups, Tikki?"

A few words and boom, problem solved. Then allow the "show don't tell" rule do the rest.

[cricketnationrise]

February 2021 Reading Roundup

jan 2021 here

21 brief descriptions/feelings under the cut because i talk a lot

Love Lettering by Kate Clayborn: light romance novel with lots of miscommunication, cute not-a-date-dates, and whistleblowing on a giant corporation

Upright Women Wanted by Sarah Gailey: buckle up because you didn’t know you wanted future semi-post-apocalyptic horse-riding queer librarian spies but you definitely do. especially when its less than 200 pages and you can read it in the morning and make your friends read it the same afternoon (warnings for violence with guns and authoritarian governments)

Across the Dark Water by Richard Kadrey: tor.com short story, plague has left the city in ruins and perpetual quarantine, thief hrires a guide to lead him safely through the city to the person who can five him the travel papers he needs to escape, warnings for violence, feral dogs attacking humans, plague

The Long Earth by Terry Pratchett: there are infinite parallel universes and some people can naturally “step” between them, but society is changed forever when someone posts the plans for a “stepper device” for free on the internet and suddenly (almost) everyone can travel between worlds

The Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K. Le Guin: part of the Hainish cycle but can absolutely be read out of order, genderfuckery abounding, basically everything that happens is a political machination

The Fifth Season by NK Jemisin: reread because my copies of the other two books in the trilogy came in the mail, first in the Broken Earth trilogy, where to start, umm, theres a group of people called orogones who can control rock/earth and there is lots of prejudice against them for that. triple POV that alternates, including one in second person, which is cool, explores all levels of this society from very poor to very rich, “fifth season” refers to a geological event where everything changes and usually a lot of the population dies (the seasons vary from acid rain to earth quakes to volcanoes etc); warning for harm to children, power imbalance, violence, murder, extreme coersion; not exactly a cliffhanger ending, but its not NOT an ending that makes you want the next book pretty quickly after

Empire of Ivory by Naomi Novik: book 4 in the temeraire series, please please please read these in order, alternate history of napoleonic wars with talking dragons that are part of the military and form really close bonds with their captains/riders/crews

Hood Feminism: Notes from the Women That a Movement Forgot by Mikki Kendall: relatively short, non-fiction, what it says on the tin

Just My Type: A Book About Fonts by Simon Garfield: non-fiction, extremely nerdy because that’s how i roll, history of the actual fonts, printing/writing, and a brief look at the most famous designers of fonts, the chapter on comic sans was particularly good

The Soldier’s Scoundrel by Cat Sebastian: book 1 in The Turners romance series, can be read out of order, sex on the page, m/m

Return of the Thief by Megan Whalen Turner: last book (sad) in the Queen’s Thief series, absolutely must read these in order, political machinations abounding, gods meddling a bit, Gen is terrifying as per usual (complementary)

The Uncommon Reader by Alan Bennet: novella? short story? featuring the queen of england discovering reading for pleasure and freaking out her staff, her family, various government officials, and the members of the public who get to meet her

The Book Charmer by Karen Hawkins: technically book 1 in a series but can be read alone, some light magical realism (there’s a family with ~powers~ but small ones like being good at plants or being able to talk to books), a woman moves to a small town with her niece (who she has guardianship over as her sister has just died) and her foster mom who has been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, the town is struggling financially and she thinks she’ll only be there for one year while they get their feet under them. she is wrong. alternating POV between three characters, light romance

Romancing Mister Bridgerton by Julia Quinn: book 4 in the bridgerton series, focuses on the third oldest brother, Colin; romance, sex on the page, reveal of Lady Whistledown

Beneath the Sugar Sky by Seanan McGuire: book 3 in the wayward children series, novella length, lots of world hopping in this one, some characters from previous books, Confection world, you probably should read these in order

The Obelisk Gate by NK Jemisin: book 2 in the broken earth trilogy; picks up almost immediately after the first one ends, still a three-narrator structure, although the narrators have changed, definitely read in order or nothing will make sense, the worldbuilding in this series is amazing

Lucky Jim by Kingsley Amis: buddy read with my mom, one of those books where the situations are hilarious and the banter is witty but i hated every single character because they are awful, set in an English university outside of london post WW2, warning for alcoholism and smoking

The Tyger by Tegan Moore: tor.com short story, Jules’ favorite exhibit in the museum brings the past to life, from present to prehistoric, tonight at his aunt’s wedding reception as jules walks along the path, it comes alive like never before; horror, but not gory, also it was short enough that i wasn’t too creeped out while reading it

Hockey Bois: A Beer League Romance by AL Heard: romance novel about two guys on the same beer league (adult rec league) hockey team who fall for each other, little to no knowledge of hockey is required, lots of emotions and an amount of not using their words, super cute, their teammates are awesome, their families are fun, plus I love a recurring local dive bar. plus the author is @jhoomwrites on here and there is more written in the universe if you’re interested (there’s smut on AO3 here)

In an Absent Dream by Seanan McGuire: book 4 in the wayward children series, novella length, backstory for a character introduced in book 1; read in order for your own sanity, many emotions were had

The Lawrence Browne Affair by Cat Sebastian: book 2 in the turners series, romance novel, don’t need to read in order, sex on the page

[mjmnorwood]

[I.D. A header image of two pencils on a yellow background, with title reading ‘Making Fantasy Worlds Feel Real’. End I.D.]

I love reading books where the author has crafted a world so believable that you feel like you’re really there, and over the years I’ve spotted a few techniques that I think really help elicit this feeling in readers. The title says fantasy worlds, because that’s what I have most experience with, but these tricks should work just as well for sci-fi!

1. When there’s an opportunity to be specific, be so.

The devil is in the details, and so are worldbuilding opportunities! I find that being specific is a great way to make a world feel realistic, and get across the tone of a story. You could just say your characters are having breakfast, but mentioning what they’re eating can really add to the scene. Perhaps they’re having porridge, which conveys a sense of normalcy, or maybe they’re eating Sustainagrain!™ which suggests a corporate-led sci-fi setting. Details can also show information about a character without outright stating it. You can just have a character gathering herbs, but if you specify that they’re collecting rosemary and thyme it suggests they’re going to cook, whereas saying they’re gathering feverfew suggests medical use.

The great thing about this technique is it makes things feel more realistic without adding much to your word count!

2. Use language to bring your world to life.

Story-specific slang can make a world feel so rich. Sometimes, a character’s background means it makes sense for them to speak formally, but if all your characters speak this way it can draw attention to the fact that they’re literary creations. For characters whose backgrounds involve growing up in more informal environments, the casual nature of slang feels very realistic.

Another facet of this is idioms, which are incredibly useful both for making dialogue feel natural, and giving details about worldbuilding. As an example, in my WIP one character tells another that they’re ‘looking greyer than a monk’s habit’, which conveys both the fact that the character looks unwell, and that monks wear grey in this world. It’s a small detail, but as we covered in the point above, small details can be great for realism.

Making up slang and idioms that don’t feel forced can take a bit of practice. For an example of where this is incredibly well-done I recommend Tamora Pierce’s Beka Cooper books. The slang and idioms felt so natural that after I read the books I unconsciously started using some of them in real life!

3. Don’t let your world be static; give it a history.

Sometimes it makes thematic sense for a world to be unchanging, but for the majority of cases this isn’t so. Giving your world a history that characters can casually refer to makes it seem like it exists outside of the book—it was there before the reader opened the first page, and will continue to be there after they’ve read the last line. This is especially effective if historical events have directly shaped the way the world and characters are now. Big, important events are great for this, but don’t underestimate the power of small changes. Little things like, for example, if guild regulations have recently been revised, show that the plot isn’t the only thing that drives change in this world, and that its people, places, and institutions don’t just exist to serve the story.

For a stellar example of a believable history, I recommend reading Lois McMaster Bujold’s Vorkosigan Saga. I know Bujold’s work has cropped up in a lot of my posts, but that’s because 1. I’m rereading the vorkosiverse right now, so it’s on my mind, and 2. she is very good. The history in her books feels so real that I have strong emotional responses to historical tragedies, despite knowing they’re fictional.

4. If something exists in the real world, consider using that rather than a fantasy version.

This is very much my opinion (even more so than the other points), but I feel that readers are more likely to engage with the fantastical aspects of a story if they know that the other details of the world do exist in reality (or could conceivably exist). I ran into this with my WIP—I needed a poison with very specific properties, so I made one up. However, when I was redrafting I decided to look into the matter a bit more, and found an obscure real-world poison that had almost everything I needed for the plot to make sense. I decided to use this as I felt it would be fairer to readers if they had at least a chance of figuring out the poison—a slim chance, but not inconceivable for a reader with an interest in toxicology. If I had used my fantasy poison, they would have had no chance at all.

I recommend Michelle Paver’s Chronicles of Ancient Darkness as a good example of this. Don’t be put off by the melodramatic series name, these are fantastic books. They feature mages, spirits, and demons, but Paver uses real-world survival techniques to make the lives of her hunter-gatherer characters feel grounded in reality.

Final note: Believability isn’t the be-all-and-end-all of good fantasy worldbuilding. A lot of authors don’t worry about realism and still write brilliant books, e.g. Patricia C. Wrede’s Enchanted Forest Chronicles are built on playing around with fairytale tropes. There are also authors like Terry Pratchett, who are somewhere in between—a lot of Pratchett’s characters/plots/worldbuilding are built on narrative causality rather than realism, but many of the details he includes are very realistic (like his descriptions of how food is supplied to Ankh-Morpork).

I hope you find these tricks as useful as I do, regardless of how realistic you want your world to be.

Like this post? Follow for more writerly content! It’ll be lovely to have you along :D

[squareallworthy]

Taking UBI Seriously part 8: Santens

This is the eighth in a series of posts looking for a serious proposal for a univesal basic income. Previous posts can be found collected here. This time, I am looking at a proposal made by Scott Santens.

Scott Santens is a writer and activist who advocates for a basic universal income. He has been called “arguably UBI’s leading advocate.”  He’s written for the Huffington Post, he’s been featured in the Atlantic, he’s testified before the Canadian House of Commons, and he even attended the World Economic Forum in Davos. He also occasionally posts to Tumblr as @2noame.

He spells out his own optimal UBI plan in a post on Medium:  How to Reform Welfare and Taxes to Provide Every American Citizen with a Basic Income. He considers it detailed, cross-partisan, and suitable for immediate implementation or, perhaps, phasing in over five years or so.

Does it live up to that description? Is it a serious proposal that we can discuss seriously?

tl;dr: No. The cost is ridiculous, there is no projection of where the money is going or what it's supposed to accomplish, it's politically poisonous, and it's hopelessly vague about what exactly is getting cut or how the new taxes are supposed to work. 

Santens proposes a basic income of $13,266 annually for each adult citizen and $4,598 for each child, at a gross cost of $3.4 trillion.

To pay for this, he proposes both reducing spending and raising taxes. I'll list the budget gains in the order he gives them. Figures are in billions of dollars.

This results in a surplus of $322 billion. 

That’s a colossal amount of money

Sheer size doesn’t automatically make something a bad idea, but it does raise the bar on how carefully we should consider an idea before implementing it. So to give some sense of how much money this is, Santens is calling for nearly doubling the amount of tax the federal government collects, and the UBI program would be almost as large as all other federal spending put together.

The US has only funded larger projects than this twice: World War I and World War II. And those were temporary measures.

Sticker shock alone is going to be enough to turn a lot of people away. I’m going to default to “not affordable” for anything that nearly doubles taxes and say that it’s up to Santens to explain why it is. He doesn’t offer any assurance at all that it would be, and this is strange, because elsewhere he emphasizes looking at the next transfer as the real cost of a UBI program, rather than the gross cost, but he gives us no way to figure out what that is.

(Note: Santens links to usgovernmentspending.com and uses data for fiscal year 2017, so I have done the same, and I used the companion website usgovernmentrevenue.com for tax data.)

Vaugeness

Disussing what he calls "invisible welfare," Santens links to a list of federal tax expenditures, and proposes eliminating some of them, but does't say which ones he means. There are 167 expeditures on the list. Which ones are fossil fuel subsidies? Which ones are home ownership tax expenditures? Adding up the 2017 estimates for all the fossil-fuel related tax expenditures I could find, namely items 9 - 26, I get about $6.8 billion. Other sources put fossil fuel subsidies lower or higher but still short of the $33 billion figure that Santens uses. If he’s planning on taking that out of tax expenditures, then where? He doesn’t say.

There are similar problems with the other categories of tax expenditures. What does "the tax break on pensions” and “capital gains” cover? Does that mean no more 401k plans? 

These are small concerns, though, compared to to his proposals for new taxes, because that’s where most of the money comes from. He proposes five new major tax systems, and gives details of how they would work for none of them. With a value added tax or a carbon tax, it’s not too difficult to guess at the details for ourselves, since VATs are common around the world and carbon taxes are well-studied, but not so for other others. How are land values, for instance, supposed to be determined? What in the world is “seigniorage reform” supposed to entail? Are we just going to ban banks from offering checking accounts, or what?

If these things aren’t spelled out, there’s no way to discuss whether this is a good idea or not.

What does it do, and what is it supposed to do?

Any change to transfer payments, whether it includes a UBI or not, is going to benefit some people and impose a cost on others. If we're going to move 3.7 trillion dollars around, we ought to know where we're moving it from and to, right? Who is better off and and who pays? "Let's end poverty" is a noble-sounding goal, so how much of the money goes to the poor?

Santens neglects this issue almost entirely. There's a graph showing net transfers due to the carbon tax by decile, but that's it. Many of the components of his plan hit the poor almost exclusively (ending welfare programs and the EITC) or are regressive, taking a larger share of income from the poor (VAT, cuts to Social Security). So how can we tell what proportion of those currently in poverty are worse off under this proposal? And how many people who are already above median income are net beneficiaries?

There is no way to know. This is the central question that should be asked of any government program: what does it accomplish, and what does it cost? I could quite reasonably put the price of ending poverty in the US at less than a trillion dollars, but this plan calls for spending more than three times that. Where does the rest of the money go? Where is is supposed to go? What benefits are we supposed to get, and is spending 2.7 trillion dollars really the cheapest way we could do that?

I don't think Santens is even interested in those questions.  When he gets to a surplus of $322 billion, does he go back and look for taxes he could have dropped or cuts he could restore? No, he just keeps going with a couple of new taxes he'd like to talk about. He doesn't attach any kind of numbers to those ideas, so I have to conclude that this has nothing to do with raising money and putting it to good use, and his real interest is thinking up ways to play around with the economy just for the novelty value.

Political poison

So even if we did have an accurate picture of what changes he was making to the federal budget and who would gain and lose from them, would we have a politically viable program here?

No, of course not. Take a look at just one item: $29 billion in cuts to pensions for veterans. That's a poison pill all by itself. Any legislator who voted for that would be handing this ready-made speech to a challenger in the next election: "My opponent voted to take money from those who have sacrificed the most for this country -- our brave men and women in uniform -- and to give it away to people who have done nothing to deserve it and don't need it. Many of our veterans are struggling. Many of them are homeless. Who in their right mind would take money out of their pockets and give it to billionaires?"

And that one item is less than one percent of the cost of the program. If it were cut, Santens's budget would still be in surplus and no one would even notice. What is that item even doing there? Why single out veterans? Why not cut every federal employee's pension? Why not tax everyone's pension?

And that's just one special interest group. Other interests that are going to feel unfairly put upon by this plan include the elderly, the disabled, Wall Street, farmers, and oil companies. Fighting your way past just one of these groups would be difficult. Trying to take on all of them at once would be an act of foolhardy recklessness.

If you just like to play around with different ideas about taxes and government programs, that’s fine. But it you’re serious about getting a law through Congress and signed by the President, you need to give at least some thought to political practicalities. That’s completely lacking here.

Conclusion: this is not a serious proposal for anything. It’s an exercise in fantasy worldbuilding with no concern for realism. And this is the kind of thing that gets you invited to Davos. If this is supposed to be star-level UBI advocacy, then the quality of UBI advocacy is pathetically low. 

[fmtpextended]

Books Are Like Onions Podcast

So I did a scary thing today. I officially launched the first episode of my new podcast, Books Are Like Onions.

What is it, exactly? Well, it’s a podcast about writing and techniques used in building your craft. It’s a lot like this blog, except that it’s shorter and has more examples worked into it, plus you can listen to it while driving. (Please don’t ever attempt to download it or read the show notes for it while driving though--that could never result in anything good.) I’d like to think it’s helpful, but take a listen anyway and let me know what you think. I’m new to this whole podcasting bit but would love to hear your ideas for topics and tips for improving it. Because it’s so new, it’s currently only available through my website, but I’m diligently working on getting it uploaded to iTunes and Google Play as well, so it should be available through those apps soon.

Here’s a sneak peek at the first episode:

What Is Technical Writing? (2:02)

Technical writing is often attributed to items like manuals and textbooks, or other books that explain complicated topics. But the main purpose of any technical piece is to give the reader insight about a particular concept or product in a way that's easy to understand. Fiction writing shares that approach; starting with a solid foundation for a plot gives you the best base for a strong and compelling story. Without it, your story will always fall flat, no matter how many times you rework it.

To build that foundation, here are a few basic questions to ask about your main character:

What do they want?

What, or who, stands in their way?

What lies are they telling themselves that have hindered their success in achieving their goals?

Your answers will provide the basic structure for their character arc, which will keep you from getting derailed from that path.

Further resources on developing character arcs are given in this episode and are also listed at the bottom of this post.

Presentation and Structure (3:38)

In technical writing, structure is everything. Placement and presentation of information can make the difference between that information being helpful or confusing. In fiction writing, structure of a story is key to its success, and worldbuilding can help get you there.

Here are the main questions for worldbuilding:

Where does the story take place?

Are there any laws or rules bound to it?

What’s the weather like, and how does it change?

How large is each location in the story, and if there are multiple locations, how to they relate to one another?

What kind of structures and materials are found in the world?

Example in the podcast: An excerpt from Harry Potter and The Chamber of Secrets

Identifying an Audience (6:18)

Whether you’re writing a technical piece or a fictional one, you need to be aware of the subset of people you’re writing for. Doing so allows you to present the story in a way they identify most easily with.

Example in the podcast: When I was asked to create software manuals while working at a medical supply company

Being able to transcribe a technical process onto paper is a skill that many struggle with. This stems from a disconnect between the knowledge that the author has about the process and the audience for which they’re writing. But learning that skill can be beneficial to fiction writing. With an audience in mind, it becomes clearer which elements need to be further explained and which you can leave out, thereby allowing you to hit on topics that relate most closely to your target readers.

Example in the podcast: Learning the hard way about needing to plan for audience, which resulted in mismatched elements and roadblocks in my early attempts at writing

Applying Research (8:25)

In technical writing, research allows you to have a much better understanding of your subject matter, which means you can more easily translate that information to those reading it. In fiction writing, it can add depth and a layer of realism that your story might not have otherwise had.

Example in the podcast: How I've applied research to my current series, The Porcelain Souls, and what kind of impact that's had

Research is crucial to the execution of a story. While fiction does give you certain liberties to bend the rules, I recommend weaving in the most prominent facts and historic elements where they apply to give your piece a sound backbone for everything else that follows. The amount of work you put into your research will show, and readers won’t hesitate to call you out on any flaws.

The full show notes, a list of all the resources mentioned in the blog, and the actual audio file for the episode can be found here: https://rachellemnshaw.com/podcast/2018/4/7/episode-1-technical-writing-and-adapting-it-to-the-world-of-fiction

Happy listening!

[mjmnorwood]

[I.D. A header image of two pencils on a yellow background, with title reading ‘Making Dialogue Interesting’. End I.D.]

Dialogue is my favourite thing to write, and nearly all my scenes have at least some dialogue in them, but that much speech can get a bit samey if it’s all the reader has to enjoy for 300 pages. Here are some of the methods I like to use for making my characters’ conversations as engaging as possible.

1) Avoid small talk (or: don’t stress about realism)

This is a point everyone makes, but it’s important so it’s worth reiterating. I’m not a big fan of small talk in real life, and I like it even less in fiction. Half a page of “Hi, how are you?” “Not so bad. Yourself?” “Not bad.” might be realistic, but it’s also dull to read, and it ain’t fun to write either. Of course, sometimes you need characters to meet and greet each other, but in those instances either keep it quick (just a hello should do!) or add something to make it interesting. A character walking in and saying, “You will not believe the day I’ve had!” is fine, but a character walking in and saying, “You will not believe that day I’ve had!” before dropping a severed head on the table is much more exciting!

One final note on this point: I’m not saying avoid small talk at all costs! It’s just that, like all dialogue, it should serve a purpose. Want to show two characters who really don’t get each other, but are too polite to say? Awkward small talk could be a great tool!

2) All dialogue should count for something, but not like, too much...

You want all your dialogue to serve the story in some way, either by furthering the plot or revealing information about character, setting, worldbuilding etc., but this doesn’t mean every line has to be Big and Important—dramatic, heartfelt, expositional and the like. In fact, if every line is Big and Important, it can get exhausting to read. I remember I once dropped a TV show (which I will not name ‘cause I’m sure there are people who like it) halfway through the first episode, because it felt like every line was a dramatic reveal, and I just got tired! A quiet conversation between two characters doing the washing-up can be just as (if not more) important to a story than a flaming argument.

To sum up, I shall bastardise an Incredibles quote: if every line is special, no lines are.

3) Remember body language and facial expressions

When I’m editing my writing, I think the number one thing that makes my dialogue feel flat is missing body language. I end up with a talking-heads kinda deal, and massive overuse of ‘said’. Body language around speech can add flavour to an exchange, compounding what a character is saying.

Compare:

“Fine by me,” said A.

with

“Fine by me,” said A, smiling and giving B a thumbs-up.

The second is much more emphatic.

Body language can also add complexity to dialogue; a character can be saying one thing with their mouth and an entirely different thing with their body.

Compare:

“Fine by me,” said A.

and

“Fine by me,” said A, looking down and wrapping an arm around themself.

The second paints a very different picture of how ‘fine’ A actually is with the situation.

If you’re stuck on what body language to use, there are loads of resources out there! Try searching ‘body language reference’, plenty of stuff should come up. Just remember that not every character will use the same body language; one might be very expressive, making grand, sweeping movements, while another might keep it to small hand gestures and changes in expression. A character’s body language can say as much about them as their voice.

4) People do stuff while they talk

You’ll notice this in real life. People tend not to just sit and chat, except with close friends (and even then they often go out to do something, even if it’s just get coffee). Having characters do stuff as well as talk gives you a minimum of two things a reader be interested in: what the characters are saying, and the activity they’re doing. Say you’re writing an exchange between A and B, where A is confronting B about their inconsiderate nature. That’s an interesting conversation by itself, but maybe you could add another dimension by having it take place while they do their weekly shop. Now they have to make sure their argument doesn’t attract the attention of passers-by (and deal with the consequences if it does...)

And a mini final point... 5) Varied speech verbs do not interesting dialogue make

"I'm so sorry." he said in a shy voice.

"That's all right. What's your name?" I questioned.

"My name's Harry Potter, although most people call me Vampire these days." he grumbled.

"Why?" I exclaimed.

"Because I love the taste of human blood." he giggled.

"Well, I am a vampire." I confessed.

"Really?" he whimpered.

"Yeah." I roared.

Ah, My Immortal, everyone’s favourite example of What Not To Do. I think it speaks for itself, but to make it clear: if you want to spice up your dialogue, using too many different verbs just gets weird. Vary your tags with action, and save special speech verbs for where they’ll count most.

Right, that’s it for today! Remember, these aren’t concrete rules, nor are they an exhaustive list, they’re just some things I find helpful, and hopefully you will too!

Like this post? Follow for more writerly content! It’ll be lovely to have you along :D