Why Battlestar’s Naturalistic Sci-Fi is the Easy Way Out

A few months back, Joel sent me an “Interesting essay on this page about writing sci-fi.”

We’re both fans of “Battlestar Galactica” and this critique doesn’t change that one iota.

This article is developed from our conversation in Skype. I agree with Joel that it is an interesting essay. However, I do not agree with Ron Moore’s take on technology. Read more

Human Nature

“Come to the table, children.”

Grandfather beckoned us all into the dining room; it was supper time, time for one of his stories. We were finishing our after-dinner duties; straining the water left over from the boiled vegetables into the recycler, and putting the dishes into the sonic dishwasher.

We sat down at the table where steaming mugs of hot chocolate were waiting for us. This was a family tradition of sorts; a way to get the younger ones settled down for bed. Those scallywags would be running around the house for hours if they didn’t get their story.

“When I was a young man, there was a disease that was spreading throughout the planet. We tried to run from it, actually. We went to the moon, but it followed us there. When we abandoned the moon for this planet, it followed us again.”

Grandfather sniffed at the tray of powder on the table. He looked at us solemnly before carrying on.

“We called it AIDS. It destroyed lives, families. As the decades wore on, it grew stronger, harder to catch. Harder to kill.”

Grandfather’s stories were often stories of adventure. He was one of the first colonists. You know, a brave adventurer.

But tonight his face was hard. Stony. This was not a story of adventure.

“When we came to Mars, almost half of the population was dying of it. We knew we couldn’t beat those odds. The top scientists had given up looking for cures; they were just looking for new ways to make the pain bearable when the old ways stopped working. We were sure that humanity would be gone within a century or two.”

All the children looked each other up and down. Nobody at the table seemed to have any AIDS on them, right?

“But there was one man who wouldn’t give up. He worked day and night, looking for a cure. He never stopped. His mother died of this plague before we came to Mars. His father was bed-ridden – and in a few months he too would take his father’s place.

“It drove him, so he never stopped. Up at five every morning, and he didn’t leave the labs until the wee hours of the morning… until the day he found the cure. He was a smart man, though, and once he found it, he stored the information every where he could before telling anyone in person.”

We had to wonder – how did that make the man smart? Why didn’t he just tell everyone?

“Of course, storing so many data files across so many networks alerted the powers-that-be to the strange activity. The government, the corporates, they were all aware of what he’d done as soon as he did it.”

“Grandfather, what’s a kawprit?” asked one of the little ones.

“In the past, there were very rich people who used their money to control everyone else’s money. Anyway, the man was found dead in his home the next day. It was ruled a suicide but everyone knew that it wasn’t. He had just found the cure, after all!”

The children were shocked; even in his adventure stories, even when he talked about the colony wars, he always avoided that word. Dead.

“It was the corporates. See, they used AIDS to make money. People spent almost all of their money trying to deal with the pain of the disease. More than they spent on housing, or on food, AIDS medication was the biggest market in all of the worlds.

“The corporates had discovered the cure a very long time ago. A few scientists had also come up with it, but they weren’t quite so smart; they went straight to their bosses with their breakthrough. They all ended up dead, but we didn’t know why until much, much later. See, if the cure was to get out, their entire business would dry up.”

The children had heard about money in grandfather’s stories before, but it always seemed like such a silly idea.

“But this time, the cure was everywhere. People knew how to make it; it could be made from some simple ingredients, if you put them in the synthesizer in the right order. Within a few weeks, AIDS was a forgotten disease, except for the loved ones we had all lost for the corporates’ gain. So the people found new life, while all the corporates took their money out of the business and declared it bankrupt.

“Over the next few years, our technology boomed. Some of it had been in the corporate databanks for a long time, hidden well beneath the information that we had access to. Some of these things were new inventions that the corporates had suppressed over the years—they didn’t make them any money, of course.”

The little ones had dozed off, their hot chocolates sitting on the table half-emptied.

“We cured every disease. We found new ways to grow plants that didn’t require water, which, like today, was very hard to find. All the things that afflicted our societies had been eradicated, and at last, we thought we were a happy people.”

“But grandfather, why are people still unhappy? Why does mother cry?”

“Because, my dear, they fixed the world, and the world didn’t need fixing. It was human nature that was broken.”

~

I didn’t understand what grandfather was trying to say that night, but sooner or later, everyone figures it out. Even now, as I lay in the bunk of my prison cell, charged with sedition, stripped of my dignity for doing the job of exposing the truth, I know that he was right; our technology can’t fix what was already broken.

The Points of the Creative Artists’ Code: Seven - Never invalidate another artist’s constructive work…

In NDK Creative Artist’s seventh article on the Points of the Creative Artists’ Code, we learn that every artist’s work is valid - it’s sometimes just a matter of how well it communicates its intention.

Modern art, for instance, fails miserably at communicating anything, so while there is often valid meaning behind the work, the work is an inadequate way of communicating that meaning. Read on for more! - Joel Falconer, Editor-in-Chief

Read more

The Points of the Creative Artists’ Code: Six - Art is a powerful communication channel

The most important thing in this sixth article explaining the points of the Code is the truth - only, in a much different way than the subject of truth was approached in the last article. The only words with true power are those with true meaning, and any form of power that is based on lies and deception is not real and lasting. Those who run the communication channels of the world cannot create the entertainment that is broadcast on them; they come to us, and artists must protect these channels with the power of truth. This is so important to the direction of culture and civilization that if you are an artist, you need to read the following article, immediately. Joel Falconer, Editor-in-Chief

Read more

The Points of the Creative Artists’ Code: Five - Always seek the communication of truth to your public…

This is NDK Creative Artist’s fifth article in the series covering each point of the Code. It’s essential reading for Creative Artists who wish to give their works the gift of longevity. Think of all the great works that have stood the test of time and still remain great today and ask yourself why were they written? If you’re familiar with the works you’ll notice that they all communicate a great truth, and often, an inconvenient one. It’s quite a challenge to try and top Shakespeare in terms of longevity (and you won’t be alive to see it happen), but you won’t make any progress towards that lofty goal without first grasping the fifth point of the Code of a Creative Artist. Joel Falconer, Editor-in-Chief

Read more

Create Effective Titles

It is common knowledge that in the world of naming products, entities, and causes that a success can be based utterly and solely on the name or title something is given. This applies to songs, books, games, cars, anything you care to name. The following article is all about creating, crafting and using effective titles, and it provides an analysis of what works and gives useful techniques anyone can use to help bring their creation to market. Read more

30 Second Review: Elizabeth, The Golden Age

I’d read somewhere it’s taken Shekhar Kapur, the director of the first Elizabeth movie, all these years (nearly a decade) to convince Cate Blanchett to reprise the titular role that made stars of them both. A word of advice for Blanchett - You should have said “No.”

I haven’t seen the first film, but I found this one overwhelmingly long and disjointed. At just under two hours the movie plodded for as long as all the years it covered. The film awkwardly spends little of its time on the Holy War England faces and the epic Spanish loss to the British in favor of frivolous court scenes, romantic intrigue and CGI sea battles. Also incessant and unnecessary is the director’s determination to rewrite a powerful monarch into little more than an angst-ridden teenager with astounding historical inaccuracies.

Even though Blanchett keeps the film aloft with her immense acting power, presence and grace, she is no match for the overwhelming detail of her costumes. A small detail compared to the movie’s other shortcomings, but they are simply tiresome to look at after the five years it takes the film to end.

The Points of the Creative Artists’ Code: Four - Never accept or agree with a destructive criticism

Criticism is a necessary ‘evil’ that done right, helps us. But how do we know when it is valuable? In the fourth of the “Points of the Creative Artists’ Code” Articles, NDK Creative Artist provides some information that helps us to tell the difference and identify the intentions of those who would ‘help’ Creative Artists. When I first started working with NDK, I was surprised by the way he dissected my compliments and criticisms and asked me for the why of it. I soon learned that it was to find out why I felt that way so that the problem could be fixed inherently, and not just superficially. Read on to find out why this is important, and how to get to the roots of a criticism - Joel Falconer, Editor-in-Chief

Never accept or agree with a destructive criticism about your art or your performance. Accept only constructive criticisms that enable you to better your communication. A constructive criticism is identified by the communication of an accurate observation. It is therefore a fact and not an opinion.

When it comes to works of art & entertainment, what is a destructive criticism? It’s important to identify this sort of thing. There are some artists who are absolutely terrified of criticism, but it is not really criticism they are terrified of; it’s destructive criticism that they wish to avoid. Certainly, there are some malicious people living in the world, and sometimes artists are no better than these. I have spent a lot of time exploring and experimenting with different ways of criticizing creative people and their works, and it can be a difficult thing to do. Editing is a great way to master the art of constructive criticism while improving your craft as a writer, but we’ll cover that particular subject at another time, and only touch on it here as it may serve to illuminate this point of the Code of a Creative Artist.

You have no option other than to receive a criticism directed at your work, or even you personally (though that’s an entirely different thing). People are going to criticize your work. Whether or not that criticism is constructive or destructive is all you need to determine at the moment you actually receive that criticism.

Destructive Criticism is the toxic side of communication, and the people who utter destructive criticisms are basically pretty shallow, desperate, and sometimes malicious people of consistently ill-intent. Destructive criticism is frequently personal. It’s not about the work at all. It’s about you, who you are, what you represent to the person offering up a serving of poison.

Destructive criticism is not always intended to be destructive; it’s sometimes the simple unthinking utterance of someone who is really communicating their frustration with something or someone else, and you’re simply the target of convenience. You have to observe and listen actively enough that you perceive and grok the difference between destructive and constructive crit.

…this brand of destructive criticism is entirely intended to…

However, there is this brand of destructive criticism is entirely intended to symbolically slay the work and those who create it. I use the term ’symbolically’ rather loosely, and ’slay’ precisely. These are the sort of remarks that are totally designed to undermine one’s confidence. They are cruel, they are rarely accurate and often have no basis in observation, or fact. They are simply intended to destroy. Buy into them and you’re buying into the proverbial fate worse than death, letting such criticism poison the rest of your creative existence.

It is important to take on board the entire nature of such remarks and examine them closely and dissect them for tone, intention and effect. Work them backwards from their effect, because it is the effect that defines the nature, and often, the intention of the remark, where they are not always so obviously malicious in intent. These types of remarks and comments are similar to the sort of intellectual and emotional abuse that is visited upon people in domestic and workplace situations. Destructive criticism is the sort of behavior bullies engage in.

It is important to understand the difference between opinion and…

Opinion is a big part of how those who are destructive communicate. It is important to understand the difference between opinion and conclusion. A conclusion is drawn from close observation of what one is presented with. An opinion is simply a shallow statement, that observes almost nothing. One can question criticism of a destructive nature and quickly discover that there is no substance to the remarks made. You ask someone “What observation did they make, that lead them to formulate such an opinion?” and you go after the specifics, and not any sort of “I don’t know” or other evasive, equivocal and prevaricative answer.

Constructive criticism however, is very precise and entirely different. It’s a compassionate statement and that is perhaps the initial observation one will make about it. The constructive crit is communicated with an attitude of care and respect that is intended to be (and is) truthful, without necessarily undermining the creation that is being observed and critiqued. A person who is going to deliver constructive criticism is going to set up the communication and preface the observation they have made with remarks intended to prepare the author for criticism.

The critical observations will not be delivered until the person offering the criticism is sure that the author is ready for it. The degree of care taken will be commensurate with the nature of the crit to be delivered, i.e. if the crit is particularly “rough” then you can expect the person delivering the crit to be careful about how they deliver the crit.

Of course, this is dependent upon the nature of the author receiving the crit too; some authors are very easy to work with when it comes to receiving and accepting critiques, and others require more care, especially those not used to the process and sensitive to critical comment. As they gain trust with the process then this “discomfort” will ease. By the way, I’m not trying to say one has to be too precious about this, and the approach varies with the author.

A constructive criticism communicates a very precise and…

Constructive criticism is valuable. It improves a work and it improves the ability of the creator of the work to produce good work. But it is how the constructive criticism is communicated and what it communicates that marks it out as constructive and therefore useful. A constructive criticism communicates a very precise and accurate observation. You can see it, understand it and think with it. Destructive crits paralyze thinking, they’re meant to, it’s part of the effect they create.

The Destructive Criticism is typically identified as: a sweeping statement that pretends to be authoritative and based in accurate observation (it’s a generality). It is often, but not always, communicated in a derisive tone. A particularly cruel statement can tie your mind in knots for days, or weeks, or even the rest of your life; if you let it. It is often delivered in a social setting so that the cover of a crowd prevents response and an escalation of open conflict; i.e. the cowardly nature of the barb is relying upon the social circumstance to prevent analysis, realization or defense, whilst maximizing the destructive nature of the effect.

The person who delivers such a statement wants the maximum possible social fall out, and they are relying upon your social nature to smooth the waters, or not ruffle them further. Such remarks truly identify the critic as coward. If you do manage to challenge such a person, then you will find that asking questions such as: “What did you observe that lead you to such a conclusion?” and “How did you come to that conclusion?” to be very effective. However, expect the question to remain unanswered, because such statements are not usually based on anything valid other than a desire to destroy and undermine.

The very fact that no answer is given is enough to remove the sting of the criticism, and expose the nature of the critic as someone who has, in fact, observed nothing. The questions and others similar to this expose motive. You see, any conclusion or statement of opinion is, or should be, based on accurate observation. Otherwise it is not a valid statement. It has no foundation in truth, that can be verified. And that’s all you have to do to protect yourself and your work from such attack–expose the fact that it is not based on accurate observation. That means it is based purely and only on a wish to destroy coming out of some pit of envy, jealousy or malice. Expose the fallacy and you expose the motivation.

This is a valid crit of the work.

Spectator observation is a term I use to describe shallow social answers to questions such as “What did you think of the work?” The answers a spectator who does not really accurately observe anything is typically “I liked it.” And if you press the question as to what they liked, you’ll find they don’t know and get uncomfortable. In this case you’re encountering an overall emotional response that may or may not be true, but which has not been sufficiently engaged by a work to actually have any part of it make an impact on the consciousness of the recipient. All that has occurred, at most, is a superficial observation. This is a valid crit of the work and it is useful to a certain extent as it tells you something of the ability of the work to engage and effect another.

Quality feedback is hard to come by, and that is by and large a reflection of the ability of people to articulate what they see; they lack the necessary communication skills, so you have to make allowances for this when taking in what appears to be a spectator observation. I call this spectator observation because a spectator is not involved in the work. They are standing on the sidelines of their mind, observing from the periphery and thus not involved in the work itself.

Constructive criticism…identifies itself as…

Constructive criticism, by contrast, is tactful in its delivery, and identifies itself as a sincere attempt to help and the end result is valuable and useful. One of the things that identifies those who want to give valuable criticism is that they ask what you are trying to achieve, in order to clarify their own understanding before they offer their observation.

You cannot avoid criticism, and you should not endeavor to avoid criticism because it often teaches us much about human nature and character; both of ourselves and of others. And, as the work of art & entertainment is for people, how people receive that work is valuable feedback for those who create it.

Radiohead - What will the fans (market) do?

I think this article: Radiohead bets on fast release, open pricing is another indicator of the music industry creaking at the seams. However, the line “It’s up to you” is a challenge to the public to embrace the independent artist’s new business model. It’s telling the audience to be honest about downloading and those who would contemplate simply taking it for free simply because they can, should consider well what they may be doing to the future of music and the industry of art & entertainment.

The question we should ask is: Are the public–the fans–as dishonest and corrupt as the industry itself, or are they truly loyal (and honest) fans who want to support the independence of artists whose talent and products they enjoy?

I think Radiohead are asking that question with “It’s up to you” which is really, another way of asking “Given the opportunity to steal, to take without fair payment, are you a thief?” it’s too bad they’re not publshing the figures as they occur, for the results would be very interesting. What Radiohead is doing is similar to Stephen King’s e-Book download experiment.

The Rise of the Independent Creative Artist - Prince, Radiohead Lead Way with Bold Marketing Moves

When the Free Articulator launched its first articles on the 4th of July 2007 it did so with the Declaration of Creative Independence, and the Code of a Creative Artist, a set of principles which state very clearly how Creative Artists will deal with the business and industry of artistic creative endeavor, and interact with society and civilization.

In September the Free Articulator published my article the Traditional Music Industry Shows Increasing Signs of Collapse. It was pirated within a day of publication and came to the attention of MySpace.

Earlier this year (July, 2007) Prince caught everybody’s attention with the licensing of two million copies of his new album Planet Earth to the UK’s Mail On Sunday. It was touted as a “give away” by the international media, though nothing could be further from the truth; Prince licensed the album to the Mail On Sunday; that’s smart marketing business, demonstrating an understanding and appreciation of what intellectual property rights are all about and how to use them effectively.

This licensing deal with the Mail On Sunday permitted the legal give-away of two million albums and raised the ire of the Music Retailers Association in the UK, who warned musicians everywhere “not to do the same or else…!” Precisely the sort of attitude and response that would encourage musicians everywhere to follow Prince’s example, and by the way, I’d love to interview Prince for our Intellectual Property Series, as I’ve been following what happened to his career since he lost the use of his name to his former-label and I’m thrilled to see his comeback garnering so much attention, as it simultaneously educates and redefines the business model of creative individuals with the industry, society and the public.

Now Radiohead has adopted the idea of the market setting the price for downloaded material and generated millions of dollars worth of free international advertising that purportedly sends a shockwave through the busines, and reflects the insight offered in my article on the inreasing signs of collapse of the music industry. The old model in the recording industry (detailed briefly here) doesn’t work any more, it is a rip-off of artists who have been kept ignorant of the industry’s workings, and disenfranchised of their rights through chicanery and ignorance that is becoming well-known worldwide.

However, as AJC points out in his blog Science of the Invisible, “It ain’t gonna work.” At best, he’s right: Radiohead’s move is free international promotion and that will work, is working, but has little ongoing traction or utility, as one needs to have a large audience, and be a brand that people and the media are aware of.

AJC is also right about what the music industry should do, but, changing a bad philosophical, moral code and business model to something morally sound and ethical requires a radical change in thinking and practise that takes a long, long time. The time to change required extends when you’re talking about an entire industry that is used to having open season exploitation of creative ignorance. Can such a leopard change its blotches?

The industry is a servant of the artist and their public, not the master. That’s the new model, the model of the independent Creative Artists who license their work to others for mutual benefit, sharing the wealth and potential of a work or collection on reaonable and fair terms without giving up ownership or paying for the rip-off of their own property. End the corruption, end the decay. Let’s have an industry we can trust.