Lazlo Zalezac: Blog

When I started posting Utopian Refugee, I posted a blog entry that said people would love it or hate it. That expectation was fully met. Some people wrote that it was an insightful journey into the no compromise politics of the modern world. Others wrote that it was a diatribe against everything that was good in the world. Some said that it made them so sick that they had to stop reading after a few chapters because the politics in it were so distasteful.

Clearly I was right-wing. After all, I mocked the liberal agenda without mercy. Others were just as convinced that I was left-wing. After all, I was exaggerating right-wing fears to show just how idiotic they were. I expected that reaction as well.

Don't mistake the politics of the characters for the politics of the author. The fact is, I think both positions are wrong. What happened to the middle? What happened to reasoned discourse? What happened to compromise? What happened to common sense? It appears all of that is gone and that makes me a political dinosaur.

The other day I was in a meeting in which a policy document was being discussed. A real topic of conversation arose in which it was debated if a statement to the effect that people should think before doing something should be added to the document as official policy. I was stunned that such a suggestion should even need to be made.

Entering into high sarcasm mode, I argued that it should be official policy that there should be no thinking before acting. That way, no one could be blamed for bad ideas since no one would have thought long enough to have one. I'll admit, I was being a jerk. I made a few enemies in that meeting.

I write a variety of stories. High adventures in the Damsels in Distress stories. Comedies in Quatyl, Magic, Solutions Incorporated, and The Donaldsons. Lighthearted romps in A King and his Queen, Mothers and Daughters, and the Future of Miss Powers. I write about the human condition in Thunder and Lightening, A Different Sort of Life Style, Millionaire Next Door, Commune, and Fighting for Family. Sometimes I write about people needing people, such as in Hard Times, Loose Cannons, and Samuel. Stories about people trying to live to a impossibly high standard such as in the John Carter Universe.

Then there are the more political stories. Commentaries about war in Hunter and Jade Force. Commentaries about the problems in society such as in Service Society, Country Boys, Utopian Refugee, The Reset Manifesto, and Pfand X.

In all of the stories, there is one common element. People are people. They're flawed. People have ideals that are often impossible to live by. People need people to help them become better people. They need to help people to become a better person. The lone animal on the edge of the herd is the one who is going to get eaten by the wolves. And people are afraid of the monster under the bed, the bump in the night, and the stranger at the door.

When I started posting Utopian Refugee, I posted a blog entry that said people would love it or hate it. That expectation was fully met. Some people wrote that it was an insightful journey into the no compromise politics of the modern world. Others wrote that it was a diatribe against everything that was good in the world. Some said that it made them so sick that they had to stop reading after a few chapters because the politics in it were so distasteful.

Clearly I was right-wing. After all, I mocked the liberal agenda without mercy. Others were just as convinced that I was left-wing. After all, I was exaggerating right-wing fears to show just how idiotic they were. I expected that reaction as well.

Don't mistake the politics of the characters for the politics of the author. The fact is, I think both positions are wrong. What happened to the middle? What happened to reasoned discourse? What happened to compromise? What happened to common sense? It appears all of that is gone and that makes me a political dinosaur.

The other day I was in a meeting in which a policy document was being discussed. A real topic of conversation arose in which it was debated if a statement to the effect that people should think before doing something should be added to the document as official policy. I was stunned that such a suggestion should even need to be made.

Entering into high sarcasm mode, I argued that it should be official policy that there should be no thinking before acting. That way, no one could be blamed for bad ideas since no one would have thought long enough to have one. I'll admit, I was being a jerk. I made a few enemies in that meeting.

I write a variety of stories. High adventures in the Damsels in Distress stories. Comedies in Quatyl, Magic, Solutions Incorporated, and The Donaldsons. Lighthearted romps in A King and his Queen, Mothers and Daughters, and the Future of Miss Powers. I write about the human condition in Thunder and Lightening, A Different Sort of Life Style, Millionaire Next Door, Commune, and Fighting for Family. Sometimes I write about people needing people, such as in Hard Times, Loose Cannons, and Samuel. Stories about people trying to live to a impossibly high standard such as in the John Carter Universe.

Then there are the more political stories. Commentaries about war in Hunter and Jade Force. Commentaries about the problems in society such as in Service Society, Country Boys, Utopian Refugee, The Reset Manifesto, and Pfand X.

In all of the stories, there is one common element. People are people. They're flawed. People have ideals that are often impossible to live by. People need people to help them become better people. They need to help people to become a better person. The lone animal on the edge of the herd is the one who is going to get eaten by the wolves. And people are afraid of the monster under the bed, the bump in the night, and the stranger at the door.

Occasionally, there's a story that wants to be told and, as an author, you sit down at the keyboard to put the internalized story to bits and bytes of an electronic medium. Even as you write it, you know that people will either love it or hate it. Some stories just don't admit much room between those two extremes.

It doesn't matter if the right words are chosen, the words are all spelled correctly, and the grammar is proper (none of which I've got a good reputation about doing). It's not a matter of story telling or plot, but one of subject. Pro-choice people will not applaud a right to life story. Atheists will not enjoy a heavily religious story.

The most recent story that I'm posting, Utopian Refugee, is one of those kinds of stories. In this case, I'm not even sure if it is the subject that will be at fault for the mixed reviews. Everyone who has read the story has commented that it will probably get very high and very low scores with few scores in between.

I can see people arguing that I'm taking one side or another of the debate in this story. I'm not. Yet I'm sure there are those who will read the ideals of first character and the criticism of the second as my endorsing it. Others will see the ideals of the second character and the criticism of the first as endorsing those views.

I'm not endorsing either view. I'm writing a criticism of the pursuit of idealistic political agendas without reflection as to the possible unintended consequences.It is a criticism of ends and means. That kind of commentary tends to make people uneasy. We want the best for everyone. It's not a pleasant thing to be told that you are cheerfully paving the road to hell.

I hope that readers enjoy it. I won't be surprised if they don't.

For those of you who haven't seen the previous post with the link to a map of the world in which Jade Force takes place, I am reposting the link here.

http://www.zalezac.com/jadeforcemap.jpg

Hope that helps.

It was pointed out to me by joecct that I made a major error in the Reset Manifesto. It is not a simple majority of votes in the electoral college that is required, but a majority of the whole votes which means that it does take 270 votes to win the election.

The Twelfth Amendment - The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.

Unfortunately, that does change things in the story line. Color me embarrassed. I guess I just earned an F in Civics.

Although to tell the truth, I would have loved to see a presidential vote come down to a decision in the House. One vote per state. Who gets to cast that vote? Could you imagine the carnage? That possibility is probably more entertaining than what I actually wrote.