Objectivism is Immoral

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers

I'm really not a fan of Randian objectivist libertarianism, so the quote above has always resonated with me.

I remember in college I had a friend who identified as libertarian explain to me what exactly it meant. He said that, in his view, the government shouldn't own any land, so a libertarian government would immediately sell all public lands off. When I pointed out that meant that all the national parks would get sold to logging and mining companies, he shrugged and said that was just how the market would work. And that's when libertarianism lost me forever.

I've spoken before on this blog about how I'm big on rule of law. I believe I'm also on the record as being not the biggest fan of large corporations that distort markets and do what they want. Libertarianism would give us a lot of corporations doing whatever they want without worrying about downstream effects, and without being beholden to regulators or accountability.

The downstream effects thing is particularly important. In the objectivist view, companies shouldn't have to reckon with negative externalities, but that just means that everyone else would have to. But because the federal government would be effectively nonexistent ("small enough to drown in the bathtub", as many right-wingers like to say), cleanup wouldn't be the responsibility of taxpayers: there'd be no regulatory or centralized bodies to clean up oil spills and mining disasters and whatever else would happen. We'd just have to deal with the after effects of all these disasters individually.

If you don't believe me, Senator Rand Paul's reaction to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill that poisoned large sections of the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 was, "Sometimes accidents happen." This was, it needs to be noted, in reaction to the US government attempting to make BP clean up its mess. Paul is possibly the most objectivist member of either house of Congress - it's no coincidence that his first name is "Rand", after all.

Without imputing further motives or ideology to a sitting US Senator, I just want to reiterate how immoral that viewpoint is. In that worldview, a pharmaceutical company that poisons its customers would suffer no consequences, and the victims - or rather their next of kin - would have no recourse. And if you think that's a far-fetched example, look up the Elixir Sulfanilamide poisoning of 1937, which killed 100 people and led to the introduction of toxicity testing for food and drugs.

About the only good thing about libertarianism is that it doesn't mind people smoking pot, but unfortunately, most libertarians in the US are also Republican voters, so we get the worst of both worlds: libertarians who want to control what you do in the privacy of your own home, but who don't want to stop companies killing you in the course of doing business.

This is why it's so concerning to see the Liz Truss-Javier Milei wing of politics running rampant all over the world. And why it was so concerning to see people talk about Milei's policies as "interesting" back in 2024, after Donald Trump was re-elected, because some of Milei's shock treatment in Argentina has seen reductions in inflation, albeit at the cost of higher prices for individual households, but that was because Argentina was a basket-case, economically. When Liz Truss attempted to push through unfunded tax cuts in the UK in 2022, she spooked the markets so badly that she lasted just 45 days.

By contrast, I'm heartened by the example of Zohran Mamdani in New York City, who's managed to fix a lot of quality of life issues like fixing potholes and clearing snow off the streets, while also balancing the budget without cutting social programs that people rely on. Instead of the libertarian view that the government can't do anything well, Mamdani's example is showing exactly how government is well-placed to fix certain things that the free market can't. I hope he'll manage to continue on like this, because government works when lawmakers understand what normal people need - libertarians can never understand that, and so they'll only ever offer cuts to regulations and services, all while everyone's daily life gets worse and worse.

Which is, as I say, immoral.

Another First Draft in the Can

I'm pleased to report that I finished the first draft of my romantasy novel yesterday. In its present form it weighs in at an impressive 148,930 words, which makes it the longest thing I've ever written. Though that word count will have to come down a little, not just in the normal course of revising and editing, but because debut authors plunking down phonebook-sized manuscripts into agents' Query Manager are, ahem, frowned upon.

To put that word count into perspective, Sarah J Maas's A Court of Thorns and Roses runs to about 130,000 words, while Rebecca Yarros's Fourth Wing is apparently over 200,000 words. Neither is the first book by their respective author, so I'll have some cutting to do.

The other notable thing about this accomplishment is that it took me barely three months to write it. The key factor was obviously my current lack of employment, which meant I had a lot of time to devote to it during the day, but I also think I did a better job of plotting it out than I've done with my previous attempts at novels. For example, the last novel I wrote, which ran to 98,000 words when I subbed it to agents in 2024, took about six months to write, mostly in one-hour increments at 8pm when I'd finished all my life stuff (work, dinner, tidying, etc). The novel I wrote before that was intended to hit at least 80,000 words but came out at 50k, so I cut 10,000 words out and repackaged it as a novella.

I'm not entirely sure why this one stuck in my imagination so well, but I suspect it's because I plotted it out much more thoroughly than those others, with a lot more emphasis on the two POV characters' journeys. Although who knows, maybe when I go back to revise it I'll see all kinds of glaring plot holes and infelicities. I won't know until July at the earliest...

It's also worth saying that, apart from any outcomes I may be hoping for, I just had more fun writing this than I have in a long time. Partly that had to do with the spicy scenes (if we're being honest), but those were a way to get further into the characters' heads - to me at least. My critique group might be horrified (or worse, bored) by them. But the upshot is that I'm a little sad to be leaving the characters behind for the moment - they were my main creative focus for a relatively short but intense time, and now I have to try and banish them from my thoughts for a while, so that I can come back to them at revision time with fresh eyes.

Though, one thing I've been pondering (and this might just be the bargaining stage of my grief journey at leaving them) is how this "put the book away for at least 6 weeks" thing works for authors who are on deadline? Surely when Rebecca Yarros or Sarah J Maas or Joe Abercrombie finish their first draft, they don't put it aside for a couple of months, do they? Their editors must be waiting for something, surely.

This is one of those things I'd like to learn first hand.

On the other hand, I have other projects that have started to demand attention, and I've been looking forward to revisiting and revising them, so at least I'll have other things to keep me busy for the time being. And my critique group has been asking about one of them, which is, with luck, going to be my next main project - unless my brain falls in love with something else and makes me work on it at all hours like it did with this project.

Brains are fun!

RIP Gerry Conway

Just saw the news yesterday that veteran comics pro Gerry Conway had passed away at the age of 73. That feels a bit untimely, given how long he's been in the comics biz, and the fact that a lot of other celebrity deaths these days come later in life.

I know Conway's work indirectly as the creator of Marvel's Punisher - a character that he initially seems to have intended as an antagonist, and about whom he was unhappy that the right wing had coopted the skull motif. I also knew he was the writer behind the death of Gwen Stacy in Spider-Man, a story that I haven't read in its original form but which is so iconic that it formed the basis of several Spider-Man movies.

One place where I did encounter his work directly was his run on the Justice League of America in the 70s and 80s - I have a bunch of issues he wrote of the team in its original-ish incarnation, as well as the Detroit  era team that gave the world characters such as Gypsy, Vibe and Vixen, all of whom had some role on the CW's Arrowverse shows.

I'm also currently reading Conway's work on Daredevil, from the early 70s. He was the third main writer on that book, after Stan Lee and Roy Thomas, and if Conway's run isn't as heralded as the later run by Frank Miller, it's still fascinating, given that he made Daredevil and Black Widow a couple for a while, even going so far as to give her top billing alongside Daredevil the original series.

Another fun fact is that Conway wrote a bunch of TV scripts, including for Law & Order. For me, the TV credit I'm most excited about is the Batman: The Animated Series episode Appointment in Crime Alley, which is one of the best episodes of that show.

More recently, I followed Conway on Twitter (before I left that platform), and loved seeing his takes on politics, which were always pretty spot-on.

As I mentioned, Conway worked for Marvel and then DC way back in the 70s, making him just a generation or two removed from the classic Silver Age cohort of creators. That longevity meant, as Kurt Busiek noted on Bluesky yesterday, that Conway ended up writing almost every major character or team from the Big 2, as well as for a great many publishers over the decades. He may not have been one of the biggest names in the business, but that impressive bibliography means he knew what he was doing.

It's just a shame he's not acknowledged in the credits of the new Daredevil show! I hope for the last episode of Season 2 they'll acknowledge him - it'd be a nice gesture.

Catching Up With the Bendis Run on X-Men

In my ongoing read-through of the X-Men oeuvre on Marvel Unlimited, give or take a few series here and there, I've just finished the two-year run by Brian Michael Bendis on Uncanny X-Men and All-New X-Men. Bendis took over after the Avengers vs X-Men crossover, which he co-wrote with a bunch of other creators, and his issues focused on the fallout of that storyline up until the eve of the next big crossover event, Jonathan Hickman's Secret Wars.

(I fully expect to write a blog post about Secret Wars, eventually)

I've spent the days since I finished Bendis's run on those books considering their legacy. Overall I liked them better than I expected to, and better than some of the stuff that came before AvX, though it also feels a little unfinished - which it is, because apparently Bendis left the X-books early due to not wanting to get involved with another big X-crossover later on. His Uncanny issues focused on Cyclops and his mutant revolution, with a group of new mutants that seem not to have done anything interesting since, while his All-New issues focused on time-displaced versions of the original five X-Men (don't ask), plus their professor Kitty Pryde and Wolverine's clone/daughter, X-23.

I think I liked All-New better, for a few reasons. One is that I liked the art better overall - the series started out being drawn by Stuart Immonen, a creator whose work I remember from DC back in the 1990s, and was later drawn by Mahmud Asrar, whose work I know from later issues. I also preferred the mix of characters - the original X-Men get to see their futures, and because everything is so screwed up, they go off in their own directions for a while and do interesting things, sometimes independent of each other. And finally, X-23 has become one of my favorite characters, so I feel that adding her to any book classes it up quite a bit.

This wasn't my first time reading part of Bendis's run, by the way. A friend gave me a bunch of back issues of both series a few years ago, which was my first update on what was happening in the X-books since the end of Grant Morrison's New X-Men. I was taken by the idea behind All-New X-Men back then, and some of the stuff in Uncanny was cool, too, though I think the Matthew Malloy/Last Will and Testament of Professor X storyline was a bit of a whiff. The new characters introduced by Bendis and artist Chris Bachalo didn't make as much of an impression, and there were so many of them that they didn't get much development.

I do recall being a little annoyed on learning back then that Bendis had taken on the X-books - I guess I'd formed a kind of negative impression of his Marvel work since Ultimate Spider-Man back in the early 2000s. Having now read his issues of these books, I know that negative impression wasn't fair, and it does make me want to go back and read more Miles Morales, whom he created after I stopped reading the Ultimate books.

That said, a check on Reddit revealed that a lot of fans don't seem to rate Bendis's run on these books so highly. They cite the kind of damp-squib ending of Uncanny and the abrupt end of his time on the books as reasons why the run feels half-baked compared to some other writers' tenures. And definitely Bendis isn't ranking anywhere near Morrison or Hickman for me, to say nothing of Claremont - but as I mentioned, there are aspects that I liked more than, say Ed Brubaker's time or even Kieron Gillen's tenure. The fact that Bendis explores how Cyclops has gone to an extreme position in his fight to protect mutants is fascinating. I also appreciate how the justification Bendis has Cyclops give for killing Professor X doesn't ring true - because it should feel like BS.

The upshot is, now that I've actually gotten a better look at Bendis's work in the context of the regular Marvel Universe, I'm more eager to check out his work on books like Avengers and the Dark Reign storyline. It also makes me think I should have another look at the Ultimate books, especially the ones written by him, rather than those written by certain other creators. It's good to be able to revisit certain prejudices about a given book or creator, and to discover stuff I want to read next.

10 Years Since Leicester City Won the Premier League

I finally got a chance to listen to the Totally Football Show's episode looking back at Leicester City's history English Premier League triumph in the 2015-16 season. They published it a week or two ago, but my podcast listening was disrupted for a while, so I wasn't able to listen to it until this weekend. It was a good reminder of that exciting campaign, if a little sad to also consider the stuff that's happened to Leicester City since then.

I followed it all from this side of the Atlantic, because I'd moved to the US by then. In a way it was better to follow it like that, because the results were there to look at when I woke up on weekends, and the Guardian's Football Weekly was usually ready when I woke up on Monday mornings to catch up on their discussion of the weekend's action. Though it also must have been fun to be a football fan watching Leicester City's campaign unfold as it did in real-time.

The podcast talks about all the stuff that made up the ingredients for Leicester's season - from assembling a team of genuinely good players from unlikely sources, to the hiring of Claudio Ranieri after a sex-tape scandal involving the son of the previous manager, Nigel Pearson. But it also makes the point, which I didn't know, that Leicester's form for that title-winning season was actually a continuation of the end of the previous season, when they'd been anchored to the foot of the table for most of the year and only pulled themselves out of the relegation zone in the last couple of months of the 2014-15 season.

Which leads to speculation about whether Pearson could have overseen the run at the title, or if he was too conservative to go for it. That question can't be answered, but it's also true that when Leicester hired Ranieri, he was coming off a disastrous four-match run as the manager of the Greek national team, which had ended after his team had lost to the Faroe Islands. That was on top of Ranieri's reputation in England as the "tinker man", who always futzed around with his lineups to the detriment of actually winning stuff - and it has to be said, he'd never won a league title until that season with Leicester.

One thing that the podcast didn't go into too much detail about, although they did touch on it, was how that season turned Tottenham Hotspur into one of the "big six" sides for many years, on the strength of players like Harry Kane and Toby Alderweireld and Jan Vertonghen, among others. It feels odd to think about when you consider that Spurs are in active danger of relegation - as I type, they're in 18th place in the league table, a point off from safety, having conceded a late equalizer in this weekend's match.

Spurs are, in a way, traveling along a similar trajectory to Leicester City, which saw a lot of things go well that season, but neither team was able to capitalize on those positives in subsequent seasons. Leicester suffered some off-pitch tragedy as well, such as when their owner died in a helicopter crash right outside the stadium, but there were a lot of decisions that didn't pan out as the club's executives hoped - and Spurs did it to themselves as well, in hiring a selection of managers post 2016 who each left the club weaker than when they left - last season's Europa League triumph notwithstanding.

Leicester's story is one that repeats itself every few years, at different league levels: a team that overextends itself to chase success, and then finds itself suffering relegation and financial chaos. But, even though Leicester is currently in danger of relegation to English football's third tier, at least they can boast that their grasp for the stars actually paid off and led to a league title.

How to Write Romantasy, by Jenna Moreci

I've already written about how romantasy seems to be everywhere, but now that I've started writing my own, I've had a lot more opportunity to think about how it's built. My Instagram feed has a lot of discussion of tropes - both over- and under-used - and I've taken inspiration from Sarah J Maas's A Court of Thorns and Roses series and Rebecca Yarros's Empyrean/Fourth Wing series. Inspiration, in this case, being both stuff to try in my own story and stuff to avoid.

But the other week I was poking around my local, Kepler's, and found Jenna Moreci's How to Write Romantasy, and snapped it up on a whim. I was already about 80,000 words into my own, but the layout of Moreci's book appealed to me. I've since read a chapter or so every day, and just finished it today, so I thought I'd give some thoughts on it.

The first thing to say, which I think the book does well, is to define the key aspects of both the romance and the fantasy genres, and from there, to define the two sub-strands that define romantasy: romantic fantasy and fantasy romance. In short, romantasy is essentially fantasy that doesn't work if you take out the romantic parts, and romantic fantasy puts more emphasis on the fantasy part, while fantasy romance puts more emphasis on the romance part. The differences are in the world building and when the leading couple gets together.

It's worth noting that this passage, which occurs early in the book, reflects what I've read elsewhere. My impression is that Fourth Wing is a little more romantic fantasy, and ACOTAR is maybe a little more fantasy romance, but I suspect the lines are more blurry than I'm suggesting.

What I thought was really well done about the book, however, was in its discussion of structure. It uses the classic Freytag structure:

1. Exposition
2. Rising action
3. Climax
4. Falling action
5. Resolution

Moreci looks separately at how fantasy and romance stories fall along this structure, and then combines them to show how romantasy should flow from one act to the next. She then talks over several chapters about how to create a good central relationship, ranging from matching the two (or more) romantic leads with one another to building that chemistry between them, to putting obstacles in their way, in the shape of both fantasy tsuris and romantic tsuris (as an aside, I've been warming to the potential of that word, "tsuris", which is Yiddish for something between trouble and grief).

Because I was already well into my own story, I used How to Write Romantasy more as a map to ensure I was hitting all the right notes, rather than to get ideas or anything else. But as I said, I liked the description of structure, especially because Moreci treats structure not as a strict prescription but as a general guideline of when things are meant to happen.

Now, I wrote this blog to talk about this book that I enjoyed, but also, it's because I've been thinking about what exactly I'm doing here, writing in a genre that I'd never properly read before about December and that is dominated by women. And then, this morning, I found this article in the Guardian. I agreed with the author's general thesis, that straight men aren't really writing sex anymore, although I thought he could have ventured beyond literary or highbrow fiction and talked about genre - though I can't think of too many recent SFF novels that contained much sex.

The exception being Joe Abercrombie's Age of Madness trilogy, though those scenes don't have the same goal as sex scenes in romantasy (or indeed romance), ie to deepen intimacy between the principal characters. Which I guess means I'm saying that the Guardian article could more profitably have been a discussion of why straight men aren't writing romance.

Answer: because straight men aren't reading romance. But also, maybe we should be? Both reading and writing romance and romantasy, I mean. Instead of writing porn, we could be writing about what sex means to our characters, and what it reveals about them - which strikes me as just as valid a subject matter as thinly veiled allegories of the Byzantine Empire or the Industrial Revolution, especially when elves and dragons are involved.

Bringing it all back to my original point, I think How to Write Romantasy is a good primer for anyone delving into writing the genre, though you should also read the genre, to get a sense of what other authors are doing, what works for you and what doesn't. Go and get it from your local bookstore rather than on Kindle, though!

RIP Sam Kieth

It feels like there have been quite a few notable deaths recently (former FBI chief Robert Mueller, Nicholas Brendon of Buffy), but the one that struck me the most was comics artist Sam Kieth, whose death I saw announced by a fellow penciller, Kelley Jones.

I didn't know Kieth's work too well beyond a few issues of various books and pinups that popped up on posters or the internet. But he had such a notable style, evinced partly in his issues of the first Sandman storyline, Preludes and Nocturnes, but even more in his creator-owned Image series, the Maxx. I had that first issue of the Maxx, or the Maxx's appearance in the sole published issue of Darker Image, but it disappeared in one of the many clear-outs I had over the years, but I remember how the line art in it was unlike basically anything else in mainstream (ish) comics.

As for the Sandman issues, I have them on hand and was able to look through those issues Kieth drew, and he was able to change tone from issue to issue and page to page, going from brooding horror and the landscapes of Hell to traditional superhero work and even down to a Jack Kirby homage. Mike Dringenberg remains the artist I associate most with early Sandman, but Kieth did so much to bring the look of the book to life, which set the bar for subsequent artists.

To put it another way, if my mental image of Dream is drawn by Dringenberg, my mental image of Cain and Abel (and Goldie) is by Kieth.

It's sad to see such a talent go so young (he was 63), but it's even sadder that there's not that much of his body of work, and I don't know where to find most of it. Still, having been on the Sandman's greatest storyline (along with the Season of Mists) is a hell of a legacy to leave.