Module 6 -the final set of readings!- is about long-term predictions and planning. (For anyone new here, I'm live-tweeting the lecture prep for my course, Predictive Fictions, which I'm teaching for the first time this session at @ASU_SFIS. Full syllabus: malkaolder.wordpress.com/2020/12/17/syl…)
I'm so angry that when I was a kid, all I knew about Dolly Parton was the size of her chest. And her hair color, I guess. Imagine taking all that talent and decency and goodness and organization -Imagination Library!!!- and reducing it, dismissively, to jokes about her appearance
I don't even know where that impression came from - movies? comedians? other kids? -but I remember it. And yeah, she hadn't done everything then that she has now, but that kind of proves my point: you focus on appearance, you miss what someone has done AND what they're capable of
AND she had already written Jolene and I Will Always Love You among many others. Why wasn't her main reputation, the first thing you learned about her, that of a major songwriter like Dylan or Paul Simon or ..?
so...is there anyone out there who actually likes it when you're watching a fun caper-type show and they introduce a character and transparently build up the relationship/backstory so there's an emotional impact when said character is unnecessarily killed off?
yes this is le subtweet ಠ_ಠ
but I'm genuinely curious because shows do this ALL the time & it's always a downer for me, not just to lose the character but because they tip their hand so hard narratively. You *know* it's about to happen, which makes it boring. it feels like an admission that only MC matters
I quit my Sherlock Holmes reread when the racism got to be too much (it was getting pretty repetitive by that point, too) but 1 thing that struck me was the constant emphasis on individuals who are the ONLY ONES IN THE WORLD who can deal with whatever
Obviously this is often Sherlock, but not always, and anyway it's a really irritating example of the continuing emphasis on a single person being the only possible way to solve a problem, an excuse for that person to martyr themself or otherwise demonstrate unhealthy feats (eg
not sleeping, not eating, working non-stop, etc). narratively it's a lazy sort of stakes-building, but through #NarrativeDisorder it translates into real-world thinking way too often, and it's a problem.
I had to take some time to think about this. Thanks Cory for the prompt! I initially felt a bit squinky about tagging people to talk about privacy but I think @astepanovich@drkarenlord@marthawells1 might be interested and have interesting things to say, but no obligation!
Privacy is vitally important. Emotions, sense of self, and creativity all need sheltered places to grow and/or space to work themselves out where initial efforts don't (or minimally) affect others.
Those are, incidentally, all things that we don't put much emphasis on in a lot of societies these days, but they are important and in and of themselves should demonstrate that privacy is valuable.
I really hope that the inauguration will be free from disruption and violence. If it is, there will be hot takes of the "See? The threat was exaggerated" variety. As a disaster expert, I can tell you that is not a useful framing.
Reactions like that after swine flu etc are part of why we were so terribly underprepared for covid: "the low-/medium-/high-probability disaster didn't happen this time therefore it won't happen" is not solid reasoning.
And of course the preparedness itself affects how bad the impacts of the event are (which is part of why emergency management/disaster risk reduction is such a thankless job: if it goes well, no one notices). In this case that's particularly true: heavy deterrence approach.