Hello Mr Kratman

As can be seen on a quick gaze through this site, I have all the readership of a paving slab. Under six feet of snow. So it was with a little surprise that I found that two of my posts had actually garnered comments (you can see them here and here). So after doing my reflexive duck and hide response, I (eventually) took a look.

To my utter surprise the commentator was the last person I'd ever expected: Mr Tom Kratman. That mostly explains my immediate hide response. Both posts didn't exactly agree with him and he kind of noticed. But still, I did write those posts with the intention of being read.

So, without further ado:

Welcome to the site Mr Kratman.

You'll probably want to read my review of your books here (you probably won't like it)

You'll also want to read my opinion of Watch on the Rhine (you also won't like it)

You might want to read my opinion of Baen's decision to publish Taxpayer's Teaparty (you definitely won't like it)

Also it seems I should respond to your comments (it's been almost three months since you posted them after all) so here's my response.

Firstly your comments on my Tuloriad piece:

I don't really want to waste much time on this but, sorry, Tim, no, that's not the argument. The argument - stripped - of all sneers and dicta - is simply this: unreasoning faith is power. Period. Only a fool could believe otherwise.

Consider, using nothing but unreasoning faith, some cloth,, cheapie detonators, and a little high explosive, a minority group poor in everything but unreasoning faith first stymied the greatest military power not merely in the world but in the history of the world, then nearly drove it out of Iraq. Or do you imagine suicide bombers operate of off objective, real world, measurable, physical self-interest?

Just about everything you've claimed about the above afterword is wrong (I am tempted to add something about moats and beams, but why bother?), but I don't care about that as long as you get it through your head that faith is power and that to believe otherwise is at least as credulous as someone's hope and expectation of 72 self-rehymenating virgins.

By the way, many thanks for helping me scar some people. Yes, I'm still struggling with the whole Christianity thing. Even so, I appreciate it when someone helps me along with my purpose.

best,

Tom

Actually, the interesting thing here is, I have no problem with your central argument. I agree that faith is power. What I disagree with is your method, because it is terrible. Your central argument that the Battle of Lepanto is an example of faith in action isn't hugely credible. A cursory glance at the record simply doesn't support your conclusion. You then proceed to spend half your time bashing atheists, which by the basics of your argument are already irrelevant, as they lack any faith. There seems to be no real reason to this beyond what seems to be your own personal animus against those you disagree with.

The problem here is you have a fixation on religious faith as a powerful force multiplier. What I really think you're looking for is 'faith in one's convictions'. Take for example your favourite people, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. Do you really think that they speak so frequently and forthrightly about the benefits of atheism because logic demands it? No. They have faith in their convictions and find themselves driven to speak on it. Is that really so different from the courage shown by the religious who have stood up and fought for what they believe in? One of the things I've always found admirable about America is its conviction that to be American is to be held to a higher standard of morality and law, to accept that freedom requires sacrifices and pain, that the better path is often the harder one. Is that not, in its own way, faith?

I'd be more forgiving of this particular afterword if it simply wasn't so poorly put together. Both the comments about Lepanto and Brights don't stand up to even the most cursory research (in particular your comments about Brights display a stunning lack of comprehension). Far too much of the work is taken up with petty, poorly thought out attacks on people who don't agree with you. Rather than an essay meant to change people's opinions, this instead comes off as an incitement against a group you don't agree with. As I said, I agree with your argument, but not with your approach, because it simply doesn't work.

Now for your comments on my piece on Transnational Progressivism:

Well...personally I prefer Kosmos, for Cosmopolitan Progressivism, but that's just me. "Tranzi" will do.

You're not the first one to note that Tranzis never call themselves Tranzis. I'm not sure what they gets you or them, though. Nazis didn't call themselves M3s, for mass-murdering monsters, yet they still were; the term would be apt, whoever used it.

It's not actually a conspiracy theory, or at least, to me, it isn't. In my not inconsiderable experience of people, even very capable people, they're just not competent to conspire at that level. Of course, a larger consensus doesn't rule out the existence of smaller conspiracies, here and there, to support it. But its existence doesn't depend on them, either. The whole gamut of things we call "Victorian" was just a consensus, well-placed people with similar (enough) backgrounds, seeing similar problems, coming to similar conclusions and solutions, and (generally independently) moving things as best they were able to effect those solutions. Tranzism operates like that.

As for the rich (and we may as well include the other players), old Euro royalty, the entertainment industry, media, academia, etc., having little to do with those at the bleeding edge of the class struggle, I think you're forgetting about hypocrisy and dishonestly, and writing the existence of useful idiots out of the equation.

In any case, have fun writing your review. Hell, it will probably sell a few more of my books, as such things tend to, no matter what the reviews say. If you get anything factually wrong, I may come by and tell you. Otherwise, have at it.

best,

Tom Kratman

I think I should start by saying I respectfully disagree with you here. Firstly your point about names is off. My point was that any movement reminiscent of Tranzi-dom doesn't really seem to exist. The evidence cited for their existence by yourself (in your afterword for Yellow Eyes) and by John Fonte doesn't convince me that there really is such a movement. To be honest much of what you cite is the simple desire to make the world a better place, rather than some grand scheme for world domination. Whether that desire is misguided or not is, of course, a different matter.

Your second point misses the original point by a mile. Basically, I think of Transnational Progressivism as a conspiracy theory. As I've already pointed out, I don't particularly think Tranzi-dom exists, but it is, to be blunt, a conspiracy. While your argument as to its memetic nature, rather than a specific organization, make it clear that you don't view it as a classical, organised conspiracy, it's very clear that Transnational Progressivism is most defined by its conspiratorial nature. It is after all, an effort to do one thing(gain global power), under the disguise of doing something else(maximise minority power). Isn't that pretty much the definition of a conspiracy? Merely because there isn't a group of guys meeting in a dark room somewhere directing the efforts of the ignorant masses, doesn't make the overall tone of the predictions extremely conspiratorial.

It took me a little while to work out exactly what your third point was, based as it was on a single sentence tucked somewhere in my argument. My point was that the idea that people of power can't do anything out of the goodness of their hearts is a little ridiculous. David Carr's full statement statement, which inspired the comment, is frankly ludicrous. Basically, he seems convinced that the because the left-wing contains people of power and influence, it can't still be involved in Marxist class struggle. This actually falls over at two points. Firstly, to continue to classify the entirety of left-wing politics as 'Marxist Class Struggle' is to betray a massive ignorance about the realities of said politics. A short example would have to be environmentalism, which unfortunately seems to be a predominantly left-wing area. There's no way someone can claim that concern for the environment is classist. Secondly, the attitude that no-one of power and influence cares about those with a worse lot in life says more about the author than it does about the people he talks about. I'm well aware of hypocrisy and dishonesty, but they're far more believable than some attempt to buy popular support for a bid at global dominion.

As a final note, I have written that review of your books, linked above. If anyone did consider buying one of your books based on my review, I'd have to conclude that it can only be out of a sense of morbid curiosity.

I'm sure you're probably tempted to respond by now, so I'll just leave you with a thought from someone a lot smarter than me.

I don't mind continuing this discussion, but then again, I've always thought windmills make great targets.

Best

Timothy Maguire

1632 Review

Author: Eric Flint

Publishers: Baen Books (available free on their website)

Quick Synopsis: American town sent back in time recreates the American Revolution in 1700's Germany.

Quick Review: The book that'll make you believe in American Exceptionalism

It's a hard time for America these days. Regardless of your opinion as to the cause, the country's prestige and reputation has disintegrated over the last decade. American Exceptionalism is an ideal dying in the streets, fatally injured by war, greed and corruption. The concept has been distorted and twisted, until the very idea is under debate. No longer is the US the ideal every other country looks too for inspiration and encouragement

Perhaps that's why I find myself returning to 1632, by Eric Flint. While 1632 may be, by definition, a science fiction story, in reality it's an exploration of what America means when it's placed against the ropes, when its prestige and power are destroyed and forgotten. 1632 sits down and explores how hard it is to be what America believes itself to be. And frankly, it works very well.

Plot: The town of Grantville, a small mining town in West Virginia, is sent back in time by a cosmic accident (called the Ring of Fire by the witnesses), to 1630's Germany, mired in the midst of the Hundred Year War. The populace are forced to adapt themselves to this new world as they try to maintain their own beliefs against the powerful empires that surround them.

The core of 1632 is the argument between the various characters of Grantville as they try to forge their own opinions into a coherent government as they face the severe challenges of living in the midst of a sprawling war. Core to this is their relationship with their downtime German neighbours (in 1632 parlance, downtime refers to someone from the 17th century while uptime refers to the immigrants from the 21st century), with the debate revolving around how much influence the German populace should be allowed within the government. Basically the argument devolves to whether this new America will be run by the uptimers or whether it should be open to all. Flint's opinions on this are fairly clear (option two) with the opposing faction being shown to either racist or afraid. Where the book really works though is in the difficulties shown. Being the multicultural society is never portrayed as easy or calm and the challenges are clearly portrayed. Most notably, being an open society is portrayed as far, far harder than the safer alternatives.

It helps that 1632 is written with a clear knowledge of history and politics. Flint's a historian and it shows constantly. I suspect that 1632 may have to be one of the most accurate alternate-history books ever, which is all the more impressive when you realise it's set in a very unknown area of history (seriously, how often does 17th century politics and leadership come up in daily conversation?). Famous historical figures like Cardinal Richlieu and Gustav Adolf are integral to the plot and allowed to be both characters and famed historical figures. Indeed, one of the most horrible moments in the series is the moment when the down-time Jews discover about the Holocaust.

Another delight is the characters. Flint allows himself a number of liberties in the composition of the cast (the Ring of Fire occurs during a wedding with the wedding guests trapped in Grantville) and the resulting diversity definitely adds to the story. There's a likeable set of easily recognisable characters from both timelines in the novel and they all receive the attention and time they need to develop over the course of the novel. Among my favourite characters has to be the town's token liberal activist Melissa Mailey who spends much of the novel scathingly eviscerating the male cast. The other fun one has to be Julie Simms, the head cheerleader of the local school and potential ski-and-shoot olympiad, who takes the role of chief sniper for the proto-US military. In addition most of the villain characters are allowed to be human beings, rather than capering cliches. About the only one who fails in this regard is the token up-time villain, who manages to be consistently dislikeable throughout the book (it should be noted that he gets a believable re-write in 1633 and onwards, becoming one of the country's top military leaders).

1632 features a wide and inventive story line that really hits the ground running. While much of the story revolves around Grantville's efforts to remain independent and free, it doesn't shirk on the personal development. There are several weddings, political conversions and unintended consequences for all the cast with much debate revolving around them. The internal debates of how to organise and rule are given a lot of credence during the course of the story. One of my favourite elements is the amount of time given to the Grantville constitutional convention (frequently a lot more than the battles are given). Flint's clearly interested in the morality of these political positions and likes to emphasis the difficulty of doing the right thing. A consistent theme is the 'American Aristocracy', the idea that, because the Grantvillians have so much more future knowledge, they should be protected and served by the down-time Germans. Flint's opinion of this is fairly pungent.

Despite the seriousness of the novel, there's plenty of fun to be had within. There's a strong vein of culture shock humour on both sides, a lot of which is due to American incomprehension of the relative tech/ culture levels. There's also a consistent array of hill-billy jokes, mostly cracked by the hill-billies themselves. Much fun is made of American and German mores as well as dress styles. There's a screamingly funny moment involving music as psychological warfare and a great scene where a number of up-time characters compare which one of their relatives was the most villainous.

1632 is a good novel for a number of reasons. Firstly, it's a good novel, with a host of interesting and fun characters facing a number of intertwining dilemmas. Secondly, it's a good sci-fi novel, with a clever and intriguing premise that the author handles well. Finally, and most importantly, it speaks to the reader. This is a book that is about who you want to be. The Up-time Americans have to face the sudden loss of all that makes America powerful and have to decide how to get it back. It's a tribute to Flint's writing and passion that you find yourself fully believing in his opinion of what makes truly America great.

Time to open your pocket books: 100 stories for Haiti

I'm not the best at being positive. It's very obvious that there's a lot more negativity in this blog than there is positive. That's probably because I find it easier to get angry about something than I do to be happy about something. Does this mean there'll be less negativity in here? Probably not. But it's time for a little change.

On Thursday I want you to pony up £15.

That'll be something positive.

Why?

That's a little more complicated.

In January, I like many people, felt I had to do something to help Haiti. But I was broke. I couldn't really do anything. Then I saw a post on the Huffington Post about a book being planned: 100 stories for Haiti. So I clicked the link and followed through. It turned out they were still accepting submissions.

I knew what I could do.

In three days, I put together a story. Five hundred words. I got a few quick looks from some friends and I sent it in on the deadline.

Cycle on a few weeks.

It got accepted.

Come Thursday, it's being published.

You can find the the website here.

I could say a lot of things here, but I'll just say this: Buy it.

Haiti still needs a lot of help. Rebuilding is going to take a long time and cost a lot of money. This is one way you can help.

It costs slightly less than £15 pounds (including p&p). That's not a lot, but it can go a long way.

Thank you.

PS: All proceeds are going to the British Red Cross. Any surplus funds beyond that which can be reasonably be spent will be added to the Red Cross' Disaster Fund.

Edit: I've just found out you can now buy 100 stories for Haiti on Amazon, so add it to your next order.