Welcome to the Playpen, our space for ferrety banter and whimsical snippets of things that aren't quite long enough for articles (although they might be) but that caught your eye anyway.

at 18:43 on 04-04-2014, Tamara
@Robinson - I don't think Snow Crash is that Libertarian. There's something cartoony and swashbuckling about the setting and it gets more than a bit of mockery. On the other hand there's a sort of cultural-libertarian vibe to Cryptonomicon and Anathem that I found more insidious. These incredibly patronizing and heavy handed episodes of just sneering at, you know, ordinary life which I associate - perhaps unfairly - with libertarianism.

(I am, of course, convinced that I'm utterly fascinating :-), but I suspect I just look that way because of a bit of a culture gap - we have compulsary military service here, and it's always possible to spin a couple of funny stories out of that.)
at 11:15 on 04-04-2014, Arthur B
Indiegogo proves that it's Kickstarter's shadier, less ethical cousin. Then again, most people knew that already from the way that Indiegogo lets creators set up fundraisers where they get the money pledged even if the target isn't hit (which just sounds like a recipe for utter disaster to me).
at 00:36 on 04-04-2014, Robinson L
Arthur: That plot point made much more sense when William Burroughs used it in the Nova Trilogy.

Huh, then I guess I ought to check that out sometime, because I actually found the religion/language/virus stuff cool and mind-bending when I read the book. What got me most were the abrupt ending, and the long and (for all that I could figure out) pointless world-building tangents.

That was several years ago, though, and I was not at a point where I could really recognize much less evaluate the extreme libertarian setting.

@Tamara: the more I learn about you, the more fascinating your life sounds. (I mean, I've been in similar social milieus in educational settings - but not in a military setting.)
at 00:24 on 04-04-2014, James D
Yeah I more or less agree with the general consensus that the earlier parts are cooler; it seems to me like stephenson did the whole "mind hacking" bit because he felt the concept tied in well with hackers and hacking being central to cyberpunk. I thought the concept itself was interesting, but it seems like Stephenson did a whole bunch of research on it and felt he really, REALLY needed to justify the "mind hacking" in the book as scientific in origin, rather than have it come across as magic. So, he infodumps rather shamelessly. Still, I think it fits with the whole wacky, cartoonish universe he created; he just should have been content to hand-wave the pseudo-science and explain it as just a more effective form of brainwashing. The plot and pacing in general were pretty rickety.

I don't remember the sex being that bad - there's only one that I can remember and it's like two paragraphs long at the most. What did bug me was Hiro's ex-girlfriend being built up through his memories of her, hints dropped that she's doing something really really important, and then she just shows up right near the end and does like one thing and then that's it. The plot seemed to imply that she'd be delivering some sort of epic revelation, but no, I guess not.

All that aside, I still enjoyed the other parts of the book a hell of a lot. Absolutely style over substance, but that's cyberpunk for you.
at 22:50 on 03-04-2014, Arthur B
By the way, was anyone able to decipher that bit about religion,languages, and viruses all being the same thing? The book lost me there.

That plot point made much more sense when William Burroughs used it in the Nova Trilogy.

Which is pretty damning as far as Stephenson is concerned.
at 22:15 on 03-04-2014, Bookwyrm
I attempted to read Snow Crash a while ago but I lost interest about half way through. I think it was around the point where Hiro and the computer had that long, long conversation about the connection between Mesopotamian religion and the computer virus. For a sizable chunk of the story Hiro is essentially standing around, doing nothing but relaying a ton of exposition. By the way, was anyone able to decipher that bit about religion,languages, and viruses all being the same thing? The book lost me there.
at 16:49 on 03-04-2014, Tamara
Oh man! I had managed to completely forget about the language-brain-hacking stuff and the awful...can you call them sex scenes?
at 11:27 on 03-04-2014, Arthur B
I found the microstates thing fun in Snow Crash and the earlier parts of the book were a neat exercise in taking cyberpunk trends and seeing what happens if you extrapolate forward from them to an absurd extent. But the second half is a huge mess, the sub-Origin of Consciousness In the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind conspiracy theory is risible, the bit where the protagonist has a long and boring infodumpy conversation about said theory online whilst he's in the middle of sneaking through the villain's Sea Org offshore city is even sillier, and the less said about stuff like the dentata the better.
at 10:31 on 03-04-2014, Tamara
I loved Snow Crash when I was a teen, but I'm worried the suck-fairy has been at it. Every Stephenson book i've read since has been a little more Libertarianism-is-cool and Geeks-are-better-than-those-boring-ordinary-people, and I don't want to find that in Snow Crash. :-(

(The Libertarian Police Department did crack me up because I served in an infantry company consisting almost entirely of various brands of Marxists, Socialists, Anarchists and a few gently mocked Social-Democrat-Liberal types...and I did once agitate for a strike in a military kitchen when we were in boot camp.)
at 09:35 on 03-04-2014, James D
Hah that was pretty good. Funny to read the comments as well, featuring a bunch of libertarians trying their hardest not to sound butthurt.

Did you ever read Snow Crash? Its setting is basically a libertarian "paradise" taken to a ludicrous extreme, complete with competing private police organizations and private prisons that are franchised out like (and sometimes in) fast food joints.
at 02:02 on 03-04-2014, Arthur B
Speaking of the free market, I hope it gives us a TV show of Libertarian Police Department.
at 22:11 on 02-04-2014, Arthur B
is actually a good thing because it's an example of the free market correcting itself.
at 21:55 on 02-04-2014, Melanie
...I found the endgame(?) and I'm not sure if my favorite part is the bitcoin that someone just left in the kiosk (apparently because they withdrew it and then decided they didn't want it), or the
at 21:15 on 02-04-2014, Arthur B
This is hilarious.

My favourite part: "Their reasoning is that an exchange that shuts down without warning is bad. Since that's what tacoX did that means it was a bad exchange. Since tacoX is now closed, it means that the free market got rid of a bad business. This means the free market works and that's good for bitcoin."
at 19:56 on 02-04-2014, Melanie
I just realized that probably looked sarcastic. It wasn't, though. This is hilarious.
at 19:54 on 02-04-2014, Melanie
but it has something to do with encryption. That means it's secure

Brilliant indeed!
at 17:59 on 02-04-2014, Arthur B
A brilliant way to learn about Bitcoin. Keep mining and experimenting and keeping up with the BitCoin forums and glorious things happen.
at 11:32 on 02-04-2014, Arthur B
I'm not up on the roleplaying scene, so how ugly would this campaign get if it was discovered that Mr. Rash, say, preferred nWOD to cWOD?

Given that Onyx Path are now actively supporting both lines, it'd probably be less controversial than it might have been a few years ago because you don't have cWOD fans sore at not getting any love.

On the other hand, if he firmly came down on one side or the other about some specific storm-in-a-teacup controversy that only fans of a specific game care about then wow, watch the sparks fly.
at 02:16 on 02-04-2014, Alasdair Czyrnyj
I'm not up on the roleplaying scene, so how ugly would this campaign get if it was discovered that Mr. Rash, say, preferred nWOD to cWOD?

(Also, judging from his comments, it seems like Chazz Darling was the vampire equivalent of Jordan Belfort, so it looks like he should be a great fit with the party.)

Still, I am grateful for this news, for it is a sign we are entering a golden age; an age where public figures are judged by the crap they put on the Internet when they were teenagers. In fact, I imagine that sometime before 2030 you will be able to turn on CNN and watch two grown men seriously discuss the presidential frontrunner's archive of Supernatural knotfic. What wonders the future will bring!

(Oh, and if anyone reading this doesn't know what I'm talking about...please don't find out for yourself. Trust me; the knowledge will not make you a happier person.)
at 19:27 on 29-03-2014, Tamara
Hmmmm. Having actually read the essay (the pro-Moffat one) I'm not sure. The call at the end there to separate Moffat from the work itself ("but he's clearly trying") strikes me as besides the point. The question is the text. I don't see DW - Moffat's or anyone's - as directly engaging deliberately with feminist questions the way Buffy or Sarah Connor Chronicles or Mad Men (etc, etc) do, but I do see the point that it doesn't mean that it doesn't actually actively speak to them anyway. (I say this as the person with a fierce and increasingly strange love for the Big Bang Theory as a viciously subversive criticism of capitalist individualism. I see the sentiment that article is coming from, even if I don't quite get the underlying ideas.)

If anything, in a way, DW is more interesting in some ways than Buffy. We can agree or disagree with Buffy's feminism, but actually analyzing it's attitude to gender is harder in some ways, because we have to get under that layer of what it's shouting from the rooftops first. I see the argument that Rory is a very interestingly feminist character, for example, and about the companions having lives outside the doctor...does that let us credit him as a feminist? I dunno. Are those deliberate subversions? Dialectical attempts to solve contradictions? An organic search for variety? Do they outweigh the problematic stuff?

I mean, I guess we could argue that had Moffat gotten a shiny fresh new blank piece of paper, he might create a Buffy, but since he has an established mythology to work with, he's subverting what he's got instead. But Buffy itself comes from a mythology, a set of tropes and tradition. Buffy IS a subversion, a very deliberate one. Arguably, her story is still all about how women have to relate to men and men's power and aggression, but I'm with the article here that utopian art is the less interesting kind of critical storytelling, opposed to the kind that makes you shift uncomfortably and think deep down "it's not really like it?"

But then what hits that point and what just makes us uncomfortable because it's just nasty is just so idiosyncratic that I'm not even sure how to have a conversation about it. Maybe the key (I've been reading Roland Barth) is emotion? Buffy made me happy and sad and generally gave me pleasure. When it also made me uncomfortable, I was forced to consider that discomfort, to examine it and try to understand it's roots. DW, on the other hand, mostly bores me. It engenders no particular emotion, and it's attempts to create an examined discomfort therefore also fall flat. I have no loyalty to the story, so to speak. (I literally could not get through the new Sherlock either.) Which kind of takes it out of the hands of the authors intent. It doesn't matter if Moffat or whoever is trying to be feminist, it just matters whether his storytelling is skillful enough to succeed with a particular viewer.
at 18:30 on 29-03-2014, Robinson L
Excellent point, Tamara. Now that you mention it, that's always how Doctor Who (including under Moffat) has come across to me, as well - it's not even trying to be part of the conversation. Which is what surprised me so much about the post on Moffat and feminism I linked below - it isn't even just that I find Moffat's feminist credentials dubious (to put it charitably), it just seems so incongruous.
at 15:43 on 29-03-2014, Tamara
I'm also kind of reminded of how some people, at least, were making really positive, thoughtful feminist analyses of the first season of Dollhouse, whereas many of us on the site ... were not. (Which is to say, we found the show's feminist credentials somewhat lacking.)

You know, I don't recall being impressed with the feminism of Dollhouse either, (granted, it's been a while) but I kind of give some credit for ambition. It wasn't good - possibly it was actively bad...but it was trying to say something, in its fumbling way. There was something to be in a dialogue with there, in a sense that you can't really be in with things without ambition, I think. I can castigate, I dunno, Friends from a feminist perspective until the cows come home and possibly turn up something interesting even, but I'm not really in any kind of conversation with it. It's doing one thing, I'm doing another (and that's fine.)

With's kind of participating in the conversation. You can judge it as succeeding or failing. My point being, that that's not a sense I've ever had with Doctor Who. It's Friends, not Dollhouse. I can pick it apart plenty, or even praise it here and there, but its feminism (or sexism) always seems by the by to me, never anything deliberate.