Forum: Story Discussion and Feedback

Another form of dating a story is when the President and/or Vice-President of the U.S. are named in a story. Much safer to use their title than their name, that way it can be any administration.

San Bruno is opposite SFO. It's perfectly decent but not a glamour town and has none of the sexiness of San Francisco.

Tony Bennett's heart was left in San Francisco. There is an unidentified gall bladder left in San Bruno.

It's the proportionality that's interesting. To update it, he'd be making $1000 per _week_ but the split-level in San Bruno would be $1.2 _million_, a ratio of four times increase in wages but TEN times increase in housing price.

$4000/month might be a bit conservative. Don't know the social context, but "makes good money" around San Francisco may well be $10k/month or more.

San Bruno would be $1.2 _million_, a ratio of four times increase in wages but TEN times increase in housing price.

That factor of 10 increase in housing prices is pretty much unique to California. It is the result of the combination of a large increase in population, much of it upper middle class, and government policies that are hostile to the construction of new housing.

Not especially unique to California. Try Seattle, for instance (we live north of there). Some years previously, I owned an Idaho newspaper near Sun Valley (ketchum), Idaho. Housing prices there were so high that hired help couldn't afford to live there; they began busing them in from south of the valley, from "poor" rural areas. Same for Jackson Hole, Wyo. And it began to happen in the Bitter Root Valley of Montana, south of Missoula, when "beautiful people" began buying large ranches that had fallen into the economic cauldron of America's small farm/ranch depression policies.

Even where my wife and I bought our newspaper, the small rural valley had been severely impacted by the California "aerospace industry collapse" when California emigres sold their homes, and came to Idaho to "begin again" ... it was common for them to purchase a rural Idaho home for cash (paying an inflated price!) and then be able to live for a year without working, on what was left over from their California sale. This had the effect of inflating our local prices, literally overnight.

So it's a combination of many things... usually people with too much money, in an area with too little housing, with market forces running out of control.

Oh, speaking of Seattle? It's very similar now to San Francisco as regards inflated housing prices, and apartment rentals are totally out of sight. If "commoners" hadn't bought when the market was low, they'd be living in East Jesus, Nevada, somewhere in the desert where housing is more affordable. Except don't try that in Pahrump, Nevada, where the "alternative" to outrageous Las Vegas prices are having a collateral effect.

in an area with too little housing

And this factor is almost always a result of state/local hostility to the construction of new housing.

There may be a few instances where this obtains on a strictly temporary basis due to a sudden influx of wealthy residents, but that is the exception, not the rule.

For such a situation to sustain beyond a year or two requires housing hostile government policy.

And this factor is almost always a result of state/local hostility to the construction of new housing.

Perhaps, but honestly, the only instance I've seen is Portland, OR which decided to curb unrestrained urban sprawl by (I can't remember the name) passing a severely restrictive measure which mandated that all new construction would be within the corporate city limits, "infilling" available space. I've heard no real blow-back on that; what I have heard is that folks down there accept it as a successful means to develop Portland as a desirable urban habitat.

The "hostility" faced by most developers is usually expressed in the form of restrictive codes, zoning limits, and so-called "impact" fees, meaning anywhere from a few thousand to many thousands of dollars charged for impacts on local roads, services, schools, and other infrastructure impacts. Which makes sense: why should existing homeowners be forced to pay for new roads and utility upgrades to serve a new 300-home development?

BUT... all of this adds hugely to new home costs, and by association, increases the value of existing properties. And increases local pressures to force compliance with existing home-owner association and local ordinances to prevent property-value impacts by an elderly resident who cannot keep up his lawns and shrubs to suit the neighbors, or a rebellious ham radio operator who feels a need to put up a new antenna behind his house.

We should avoid blaming the "gawddamned gubbermint" for our troubles, eh? In truth, them "gawddamned bureaucrat basturds" is ... ourselves.

U.S. should vote the voters out of office

I cannot agree - however stupidly they may act.

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time" - Winston Churchill

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time" - Winston Churchill

I'd agree, except the USA is no longer a democracy. The iron grip of partisan politics and the abuse of power to assure near-perpetual incumbency (one example: electoral district gerry-mandering), coupled with corrupt contribution schemes, has essentially destroyed the 'democratic' character of US governance.

I believe in democracy, except we ain't got it here. What we've got is an oligarchy, a political system governed by a few people (the ultra-wealthy & their corporate interests), pure & simple.

I believe in democracy, except we ain't got it here. What we've got is an oligarchy, a political system governed by a few people (the ultra-wealthy & their corporate interests), pure & simple.

We started as a Republic, with limited national government since powers not expressly given were reserved for the states or the people. The initial electorate were almost all wealthy, principally landowners since that was wealth in those days, with a sprinkling of merchants and owners of manufacturing businesses. One of the big issues was tariffs, the north with businesses wanted high ones so they could impose high prices, the south, mostly landowners wanted low ones so they could buy foreign goods at good prices.

Of course slaves didn't vote, but got counted as 3/5ths of a person for deciding how many citizens a state had to determine how many Representatives in Congress a state got. Very few, perhaps no poor people voted, the rich who were the legislature decided on wealth requirements to be able to vote. Popular election of Senators was unusual. Mostly the State Legislatures selected Senators.

We started out with an Oligarchy, things have evolved, but the founding fathers might recognize that rich people are still in charge for the most part, no matter how many "citizens" vote, or don't.

If governments rob Peter to pay Paul, governments can rely on the support of Paul.

Of course slaves didn't vote, but got counted as 3/5ths of a person for deciding how many citizens a state had to determine how many Representatives in Congress a state got. Very few, perhaps no poor people voted, the rich who were the legislature decided on wealth requirements to be able to vote.

People keep chopping off the context on that decision. It's getting increasingly irksome with how some people try to skew it. Many of the people drafting the Constitution wanted to abolish slavery outright, including some of the slave owners. However, they knew that such a solution wasn't going to get them anywhere in many of the colonies. So they compromised.

It was openly understood then, and should be blatantly obvious to any rational person today, that slaves and voting don't mix. Either because their owners would ensure they never voted, or that when they did, they voted as per instructions from their owner. Which in the latter case takes "buying votes" to a whole other level.

But likewise, with the apportionment of the House of Representatives (and Electoral College), the 3/5ths of a person compromise was as much to curtail the viability of any slave-holding state of pursuing a strategy of mass importing slaves expressly for the purpose of gaining undue influence over the Congress of the United States of America.

It wasn't the slave holders who pushed the 3/5ths of a person clause, it was the Abolitionists. But as they say, "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

The way I learned it, representatives of slave states wanted slaves counted one for one, and abolitionists wanted slaves not counted at all, the 3/5th decision was the compromise they settled on.

The truth is that most likely there was right and wrong on both sides of the issue. But since the winners are also the ones who write the history books. Their side is the one which is mainly presented without faults.

Its the same today, many judge everyone from certain countries based on a minority portion of the population, since that is what is publicized. (makes the news)

Instead when we take the time to actually understand each other, we find how much we have in common with them. And also how much each of us have to learn from one another. I prefer the learning from each other part much more.

The truth is that most likely there was right and wrong on both sides of the issue. But since the winners are also the ones who write the history books. Their side is the one which is mainly presented without faults.

The survivors are the ones who write the history. In older times on a field of battle, that often translated into only the victorious party still being alive(and able to tell their tales).

Of course, more modern times have put more skew on it. The survivors/witnesses may provide the primary source material, but popular media portrayal often trumps reality and becomes the popularly held reality. As a certain group of Germans demonstrated to great effect about 90 years ago.

Even more recent times have thrown government bureaucrats, school boards, "social engineers" and political activists as well as political agitators into the mix of who writes or otherwise edits the history books which see mass consumption.

The source material hasn't changed, but most people don't read the "primary sources" any more. They get the edited, revised, and highly redacted cliff-notes version instead.

The way I learned it, representatives of slave states wanted slaves counted one for one, and abolitionists wanted slaves not counted at all, the 3/5th decision was the compromise they settled on.

So then if the abolitionist had their way on apportionment, then it would be "slaves didn't even count as a person." Instead of 3/5ths, that they were counted at all was because of pushback by the pro-slavery crowd. Which is directly counter to the claim the "equal rights" crowd likes to make on this.

The only people who supported counting a slave as a full person for apportionment purposes was a slave holder. The abolitionists(the "equal rights" people of the time) didn't. Which was my point, anyone who harps on the 3/5ths thing to make the founders seem evil don't understand the context of what they're citing. In the context of the time, supporting a full count was tantamount to endorsing slavery.

Apropos anachronism, I'm dealing with some of it in the prologue of the do-over stories. This is a lot more challenging than the more typical do-over where the protagonist starts teenage again with better decisions, but not trying to change history.

The hell with economics; there are more important things. I have stated, in the prologue, that it's my story and I get to put 1969-1970 skirt lengths into 1963.

Assuming that it's already introduced. If I understand your point, yes, its introduction was socially revolutionary, but I can only deal with so many revolutions in one story.

The Earth revolves around its axis every day and around the sun every year. Sounds like multiple revolutions to me.

Rotation versus revolution. You forgot axial drift. :-)

In some SOL context, axial drift may be the problem that one might need assistance in putting one's axis into a moving, well-lubricated receptacle. The symbolism of aircraft refueling with the boom technique is wonderful, except when you remind fighter pilots that they assume the female role.

The symbolism of aircraft refueling with the boom technique is wonderful, except when you remind fighter pilots that they assume the female role.

? I thought that the tanker has the cone and the fighter the pitot head

I thought that the tanker has the cone and the fighter the pitot head

Correct, which is what confuses me as well. Because it very much is the fighter in possession of "tab a" and pursuing "Slot b."

Best guess is he's asserting the fuel line that cone is attached to is "the engorged penis" or something in that vein.

The imagery then concludes with the tanker then "discharging its (pay)load into the receiving aircraft" and concluding by the tankers "penis" then becoming "flaccid" at the conclusion of the fueling as they retract the fuel line.

So I guess I could kind of see both sides on that one.

There are two kinds of aerial refueling. The more common one is probe and drogue, where the fighter has the "penis" and the tanker drags one or more "vaginas". Advantages include that the kit can readily move from aircraft to aircraft, and can refuel more than one aircraft at a time.

Because probe and drogue has to connect to the tanker's tanks by flexible hose, the transfer rate is limited. Generally limited to the U.S. Air Force, the boom method connects two aircraft by a rigid pipe, manually steered by an operator, on the tanker. That pipe can be larger and transfer far more fuel. This method was developed principally for fast refueling of large heavy bombers.

...have some character comment on a passing 'chick' about how 'hot' the new miniskirt trend is...

Or some older people commenting how scandalous it is.

By the way, I'm assuming you're not going to tackle any of Kennedy's many affairs of the time?

Rather to the contrary. I mention Fiddle, Faddle, and Mimi. Next, I create a few new ones, variously with a Marilyn lookalike and a Jackie lookalike.

My sense, from recent historical work, is that they may have had an open marriage and Jackie had her affairs. That's one of my assumptions.

He could be nasty with innocent conquests like Mimi, whom he ordered give Dave Powers, his "body man" and apparent procurer, a blow job. Some very thoughtful historians suggest that he compartmented well, being very thoughtful about the people as a whole.

LBJ also had his, which might have included a Texas rattlesnake if it held still long enough.

**Spoiler**

I want JFK to live, not because I want to have more than a passing link to the assassination [attempt], but because I personally believe that he would not have gotten us embroiled in Vietnam. New chapters are starting to shift people in the Administration, people with a better understanding of insurgency and counterinsurgency, and less of a rabid anti-communism (subset China-phobia).

Thinking it might be interesting, somewhere on the Forum, to be discussing these plot ideas.

weren't ready to drop the general discussion of your story ideas (i.e. you weren't ready to abandon the discussion to thread drift).

Precisely. It's a big challenge to know how much historical context to set, to understand the problem to be solved. The next problem is to have adequate sex that reinforces the story line -- one assumption that I make is that sexual energies/magick drive the telempathy, rapport, and bonding.

JFK had a good intuitive sense of foreign policy and the military. In contrast, one of the problems was the excessively quantitative approach of the Secretary of Defense, and another was reflexive anti-communism that caused us to ignore opportunities.

It's not just a matter of having JFK's better judgment at the Gulf of Tonkin. I'm having him think twice about the early buildup, rather like Eisenhower would put up a hand and say "enough".

In a few chapters (May 1963, the 2nd anniversary of the commitment to put a man on the moon), I'm having him shift Secretary of Defense McNamara to a science czar role for which he actually might have been excellent. His deputy, Ross Gilpatric steps up, he being one of the few people to manage the JCS during the Cuban Crisis.

I'm building up Roger Hilsman into a major character. Some thought of him as a loose cannon, but he was the only senior official (starting as the head of State Department intelligence) with actual combat experience as a guerrilla. I happen to think highly of him without the enhancements that I'm having him and his wife given by the Alien Space Bats.

This is a universe that picks up from the Cuban Missile Crisis. I think many of you make much more of Oswald than I do.

fictional (not alternate history) historical recount of the Kennedy years

I am curious as to what you see as the difference between an alternate history and a fictional history. To me, they would seem to be the same thing.

I am curious as to what you see as the difference between an alternate history and a fictional history. To me, they would seem to be the same thing.

My impression as well. While the story can elaborate, there are distinct points of departure from our history from which much derives. Early on, it's somewhat bureaucratic, with Roger Hilsman growing in influence and establishing himself with JFK. I see the reverse honey traps around JFK as development.

Obviously, the assassination, which I haven't decided exactly how to handle, is a POD. For me, however, the biggest POD will be Kennedy handling the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. There will be lesser PODs where he examines the wisdom of escalation and explores a neutralist solution. Earlier, however, I'll keep the early OPLAN 34A secret operations against the North.

I do expect to have Diem die as he did.

I am curious as to what you see as the difference between an alternate history and a fictional history. To me, they would seem to be the same thing.

I would consider "fictional history" as being a possible take on historical events taking into account knowledge as at the time of the said events with "alternate (or alternative) history" including what would have then have been thought of as sci fi elements

I would consider "fictional history" as being a possible take on historical events taking into account knowledge as at the time of the said events with "alternate (or alternative) history" including what would have then have been thought of as sci fi elements

I think I agree. In the first, Oswald simply shot himself in the foot, while in the second, some Alien Space Bat or designee intercepted the bullet?

I think I agree. In the first, Oswald simply shot himself in the foot, while in the second, some Alien Space Bat or designee intercepted the bullet?

I think I'd somewhat hold to that comparison as I consider it.

The problem with that is the confusion of "historical fiction" with "fictional history" in this case. As it seems they'd be describing two very different things.

For example one is a story about the Titanic sinking after maneuvering to avoid hitting an Iceberg, which it did anyway.

The other tells the story of what happened after the ship had been in a head on collision with the same iceberg at speed.

And then of course, the third option of time travelers/aliens or other such entities getting involved in the situation.

"Historical Fiction" are real historic events from the point of view of fictional people, or of actualy historic figures featuring purely fictional dialogue.

Generally, I believe "Historical Fiction" is viewed as any fictional story set in a real world historical setting. Often that setting includes real historically significant events, but that is not required.

Any story of daring do in the golden age of piracy, would be historical fiction, as would any realistic story set in medieval Europe.

This discussion, I think, will be very useful in the long term, perhaps creating several tags.

Another genre that takes place on SOL is the "do-over" in which there are no substantial historic changes. Oh, a character may use future knowledge to play the market and gain independent wealth, but it's mostly about gaining the lost love from high school, averting tragic death, etc.

Crumbly Writer, is this a reasonable formulation:

In historic fiction, Oswald kills JFK, but before that event, there is text that gives insight into JFK, such as his extremely active sex life. Of course, that's now coming out.

In fictional history, Oswald, without help, misses and no one even knows he fired. I'm a bit tempted to do that. What interests me is how the Kennedy Administration could have done better with Vietnam. For example, in May 1963, I have him move Defense Secretary McNamara to a new post for which he's really better suited, and have his more sensible deputy step up.

Alternate history...JFK is on Earth-2 and is Joanne Fitzgerald Kennedy?

I agree with your analysis of the current problems, especially gerry-mandering, but if you get rid of voters the oligarchy will stop even pretending there is an effective democracy there!

Why settle for the lesser evil? Vote for Chtulhu, the greater evil!

Mars appears to be populated entirely by robots. Is it a really bad example?

Dejah Thoris, Yum!

Personally, I think the U.S. should vote the voters out of office. Whoever they elect in this election is going to be a bad choice, and we only have ourselves to blame for it. Maybe taking people out of the political process will improve it.

They were too slow. We could have exported Margaret Thatcher and her handbags. Control the unions, control the NRA, control the bankers and control ....

And this factor is almost always a result of state/local hostility to the construction of new housing.

There may be a few instances where this obtains on a strictly temporary basis due to a sudden influx of wealthy residents, but that is the exception, not the rule.

For such a situation to sustain beyond a year or two requires housing hostile government policy.

We have a similar situation. Government has ordered our town to build x new houses (where x is large!). The council approved a considerable number of houses in one particular area and at the same time refused to allow the overcrowded local school permission to build new classrooms.
This justifies the feeling that the word "politician" is means "moron"

It's generally accepted that it takes two wage-earners now to buy a home and make mortgage payments. It's gotten disproportionately worse since the '70s. Unless, of course, the wage earner is a Silicon Valley wunderkind.

Both spouses need to be wunderkinders to buy a house in Palo Alto today.

There are many potential causes for a story becoming dated. Not all of them are obvious ones.

Exactly. The above price differentials might date the story, but they shouldn't affect its overall readability, unless it turns out that this is a modern story and the author is just oblivious. On the other hand, there are lots of influential and award-winning SF novels from the 50's through the 80's which are almost unreadable today due to the aggressiveness of the cold war/Russia is evil settings.

And that's not even getting into subtler things like changes in how audiences approach content, story-lines, and realism.

I believe "1984" is no longer required reading in the school system.

it dang well should be, for the validity of the content, even if the dating is a little off

Republish it with the original title, 1948. Orwell was a pessimist and was describing current events, only slightly exaggerated, as he saw them.

I believe "1984" is no longer required reading in the school system.

Required reading lists can cause some students to quit reading instead of encouraging them to read. I have helped students with that problem in the past. I followed a basic procedure: Find out their reading comprehension level. Find out what their interests were. Go to the library with them and find books that were just a little above their current comprehension levels that were using the things which interested them. Funny thing is that had much wider influence than just their reading skills. So many areas of knowledge are combined into even simple everyday activities. The results were their reading skill improved, their math improved, their science (many different ones) improved and above all their language skills improved. Funny part was they studied all of the parts outside the reading on their own instead of being required to do so.

I believe "1984" is no longer required reading in the school system.

Probably because it's been moved from the "fiction" category and reclassified as "non-fiction" and thus requires a different curriculum authorization.

The book was as good as it ever was, but the fact that 1984 was no longer futuristic was the book's kiss of death.

Time to re-release it.
2084.

No its the narrow minded attitude of many so-called educators. The same ones that will insist a 3rd or 4th grader read Dickens as required reading. He is darn hard to understand when much older let alone at that age bracket. Then they wonder why the kids never develop the reading skill properly. The kids wind up hating reading with that tactic.

That is pretty much what docholliday said.

The original I take it. Then again thanks to some details in my life I learned first hand one possible reason for the constant traveling him and other top-guns did. You get tired of having to keep your back to the wall, preferably in a corner.

Probably the publishers doing. It would sure increase the profit margins of the book.

Or a Ferengi arms trader turning up during a World War to sell their wares to one or more parties in the war.

I really, really, try to avoid contemporary politics. Still, I have to wonder if Trump is a traditional Ferengi name.

I really, really, try to avoid contemporary politics. Still, I have to wonder if Trump is a traditional Ferengi name.

No, His grandfather changed their last name after his family came here. The original family name was Drumpf.

#MakeDonaldDrumpfAgain

I really, really, try to avoid contemporary politics. Still, I have to wonder if Trump is a traditional Ferengi name.

That depends, does he think all women should be kept naked at all times?

I guess that could tested once he gets in office, if he does anything to encourage nudity on the public airwaves. Imagine the ratings the Miss America Pagent(Which Trump nominally owns) could get if the FCC would let them do a topless, or even nude/body paint, Swimsuit competition?

That Miss America is allegedly supposed to be a role model for young women and girls alike would just be icing on that cake.

Ironically, I could almost see (2nd term, lame duck) Hillary pulling comparable, only from the other (feminist/equal rights) end. "If we can see topless men in these venues, why can't women go topless in those places as well?"

Considering that the major broadcasters have been trying to get the nudity restrictions in particular lifted for over a decade now. I wouldn't be surprised to see something change on that front in the next couple decades, but probably not within 4 years. :)

I was just cautious a few readers might expect a different outcome, and subsequently punish you for disappointing them--something you may never discover when they punish you with bad scores and reviews.

Look at the expectations here, in the Forum. The assassination really hadn't been very important to me in developing the story, just that Kennedy, not Johnson, was alive to deal with Vietnam. Prior to the assassination attempt, yes, I am having him make some different decisions, such as moving McNamara.

Could you elaborate on "alert readers" about McNamara? Let me elaborate what I mean. I hadn't planned on giving an alert, but simply having the President make the announcement. My characters don't know JFK's inner thoughts. Yes, some of them do interact with him, and might give him the idea. Others don't interact on a policy level, just fucking, but given that telempathy plays a role, they might suggest or reinforce ideas.

Nevertheless, my plan was for him to make the McNamara announcement on the anniversary of the Moon commitment, since that involves where he's going. I certainly could have the idea -- the alert if you will -- be broached in character or senior official discussions.

I think I've beaten this dead horse enough.

No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'!

No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'!

The Dead Horse is not sufficiently beaten until all that is left is a fine paste.

The Dead Horse is not sufficiently beaten until all that is left is a fine paste.

Clearly not a Monty Python fan.