1. You see people saying "Dune" is a "Star Wars" rip-off and the first impulse is just to laugh b/c of course the novel Dune predates Star Wars & influenced it etc. But there's a larger thing at work, which is the shared universe of the science fiction genre.
2. One of the interesting features of science fiction is the way concepts in it are shared. Not unlike scientific discoveries, once a writer comes up with a great idea, it gets added to common storehouse of the genre & built on: robots, time travel, galactic empires.
3. The idea of the "rip off" is the language of fandom & intellectual property lawyers, within science fiction writing community, it's recognized that writers work by sharing and adding to the storehouse of ideas.
4. A specific example: from early on (in works like John Carter) s.f. writers loved the image of sword fights in futuristic or alien environments. But this made no sense: if you had laser ray guns, why use swords? In 1949, Charles Harness had the solution.
5. Harness was a run-of-the-mill schlock pulpsmith but in 1949 story he posited that in future with force fields, swords would be useful because they could be slow enough to penetrate at close range, unlike lasers. This became standard solution, used in many works like Dune.
6. Aside from Harness' forcefields/swords solution, Dune also borrow heavily from Cordwainer Smith (desert planet, navigators) & is a real melange of other sources (Lawrence of Arabia, counterinsurgency manuels, Quileute folkways, the Koran, etc).
7. The biggest commonality Star Wars has with Dune is that it's also a synthesizing work, a bricolage of many sources (Dune but also Flash Gordon, Hidden Fortress, westerns, war movies, 1930s serials, etc).
1. In his New Republic review of Dune, @DavidKlion noted film had difficult task of needing to please both "general audiences looking for an epic sci-fi blockbuster, and fans of the classic 1965 Frank Herbert novel"; achievement of movie is it does that.
2. In my experience, Dune does in fact satisfy both those coming in fresh as well as hardcore fans. I saw it with my partner, who (unlike me) hasn't read the books or seen any of the earlier adaptions & she was impressed. It threads a very narrow needle.
3. What the movie does that's smart is take the long bits of exposition (really info-dumps) in the novel & puts them as unexplained background, foregrounding actions of characters. Exposition is turned into visual narrative to an impressive degree.
1. Some in CIA want to go all out to punish Russia for using microwave weapons to harm US spies & diplomats causing Havana Syndrome. My suggestions: we find out first a) is it Russia? b) does weapon exist? c) does Havana Syndrome exist?
2. Given how conjectural "Havana Syndrome" caused by microwave weapon theory is, it's unnerving to see it being used to advocate hostile action against another country.
3. In some ways, threat inflation on Havana Syndrome is worse than WMD claims in run-up to Iraq war. After all, the non-existent weapons at least were things that we knew exist in some form in the world & CIA was pressured by Bush admin. Here it's conjectural weapon & from CIA
1. This is a good thread on why the dream of an American Orban is a fantasy but the people who it is addressing won't be able to listen because it's premised on working within a democracy and they've given up on democracy.
2. The post-liberal right recognizes they can't win a majority but they also realize (as liberals like @nate_cohn refuse to do) that you can govern in USA as a minority. Lots of leeway to do that through electoral college, gerrymandering & courts. And lots of precedent.
3. As Willmoore Kendall used to say, the true American tradition isn't just the town hall but running someone out on a rail. So, the true American tradition isn't just individualism & democracy but also Jim Crow, courts & Senate thwarting popular majorities, etc.
1. As a whittled down reconciliation bill is in final negotiations, it's worth asking "what's the deal with Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema?" An urgent question not now but for the forseeable future since they'll set the limits on what Democrats can do.
2. Manchin is legible in way that Sinema isn't: he's just a plain old conservative Democrat, willing to horse trade to get pork in his state in exchange for other things he doesn't like. Since his vote is necessary he has leverage and is using it with frustrating ferocity
3. Sinema puzzles people more because she hasn't been upfront about demands and a lot of what she does makes sense politically (evidenced by her sinking poll numbers). Combined with her colorful background (Green Party) & attire, she's presented as a freak. That's a mistake
1. This gets at something very odd about how the Democrats see politics which came out in the debate over Shorism & popularism -- as a service industry where the job is to get as many customers as possible but provide them with the bare minimum to keep their patronage.
2. I mean, what exactly is the point of getting involved in politics? If it's to advance some exercise power to achieve actual goals but just to win elections without changing much, then why not go into some other, more rewarding line of work?
3. One reason I'm predisposed to like Shor does open the path for turning bad service politics into the direction where it has to actual deliver the goods: not just talk about what's popular but do it ("deliverism" as @ddayen says).
1. Oh, like you've never forged a divorce certificate in order to sleep with an underling in a workplace that's wildly tolerant of sexual harassment. Or: some thoughts on Axel Springer emerging as a force in America media.
2. Ben Smith's typically excellent column yesterday on Axel Springer focused on the toxic workplace culture and only made glancing reference to the company's culture of ideological conformity, which is also inimical to good journalism.
3. There's an ideological framework of centrist liberalism (articulate by Jonathan Chait or the Atlantic) which is attuned to free speech threats from the extreme right & extreme left but is blind to the problem of extreme centrists (Axel Springer being center right in USA).