Hey guys and gals. I must be stupid or something. In Graybyrd's Masi'shen series, he post at the last of book 2 that book 3 will be on Finestories. I can not seem to find it. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you in advance..
Hey guys and gals. I must be stupid or something. In Graybyrd's Masi'shen series, he post at the last of book 2 that book 3 will be on Finestories. I can not seem to find it. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you in advance..
My apologies... and to the several who wrote emails, one in particular very flattering and probably undeserved... which were tragically lost when my email program puked and spewed all my saved messages before I could answer them.
In short, "Masi'shen Resolution" (the third in the series, 'Stranded,' 'Evolution,' 'Resolution') has proven extremely frustrating and although I've written a great deal of material, most of it will need severe pruning and reworking.
Quite frankly, the primary problem is two-fold: 1) the prohibition against killing which, sadly, a great many savagely insane people deserve, and 2) the idiotic concept that it might be possible to prevent humanity from incinerating itself, even with intervention and the threat of a 1,000-year quarantine. It appears that national self-interest precludes any rational thought that turning the planet into a radioactive cinder to force one's will upon others is a bit self-defeating.
I've lain awake struggling with those thoughts and I will--ultimately--resolve the conundrums and finish the story. I have high hopes that it will be a suitable end for the trilogy.
Meanwhile, I've been engaged in a late-winter, early-spring Fiction Writers' Seminar locally, and it has been extraordinarily beneficial. It led to an epiphany of sorts: there's a huge gulf between good writing, and good story-telling. (Yes, Virginia, there IS a difference.) With that project underway, I've been working hard on the second book of my original 'Pasayten Pete' saga, called "Gold Mountain." This will publish on Fine Stories when finished. Never again will I try to write to keep up with an on-going serial posting schedule. The entire story must be crafted, cooled, re-read, edited, reworked, its nose wiped, its little bottom wiped, and made suitably presentable before its public appearance.
I will get back to 'Resolution' in good time, and it will benefit hugely from what I'm currently learning. Thank you for your patience.
Meanwhile: if you're a writer, get a copy of David Morrell's "Successful Novelist: A Lifetime of Lessons about Writing and Publishing."
This is a book about how to tell a good story. Lots and lots of happy fools can 'write good' but damned few really know what is involved in telling a good story that a reader won't put down. I wish I'd stumbled on this book years ago. I and a superbly-good new writer friend are devouring this book, and we'll be revising our work to suit.
Thanks for your patience. Please pass the fish.
Oh... David Morrell: his first novel, published in 1972, became a global best-seller. The manuscript of "First Blood" sat in his desk for several years; he almost abandoned it. He reworked it, reshaped it, agonized over the first page to give it a good beginning, and it was finally published.
Perhaps you'll recall the character that book presented to the world: "Rambo." The book is one helluva lot better than the movie.
1. People in need of a good killin' can always be lobotomized. Leave the 'person' alive but wipe the mind/personality.
2. Mutually assured destruction and game theory only have a problem when the payoffs are skewed (if at least one side so despises the other that the 'payoff' of continued existence is reduced sufficiently by the continued existence of the enemy that mutually assured destruction is a desired (or tolerated) outcome... Unless you give delusional idiots (ie religious types) control of nukes, this is unlikely. Most rational types view being destroyed as something to be avoided. As long as everyone has some degree of rationality (and/or self- interest) doomsday devices work quite well at preventing a nuclear exchange.
Thank you for your input here. I admire GREATLY you and your compatriot authors, you slave to get your creation on 'paper', you sometimes struggle to post your 'baby', you then get 'feedback' that reflects why 'critics' are so loved ... and, oh, you do it for FREE?!?! Any masochism vibe there? Very Best to you, and Merry Christmas!
Digging around on the internet you may find alleged transcripts of the Chinese Communist Party military conference from a decade ago. The basic summary was that losing 800 million people in a nuclear or biological weapons exchange with the USA was acceptable, even desirable as it would remove the USA as a great power competitor and reduce China's population to a manageable pre-revolution level. Cold blooded rationality that doesn't put value on human life can be just as dangerous as religous fanatics or extreme adherence to an ideology.
Bill Gates has stated that he hopes to reduce the world population by 10 to 15 percent using vaccines. He refuses to vaccinate his own kids so that probably doesn't fit the mutually assured destruction bit, although its certainly cold blooded rationality.
Bill Gates has stated that he hopes to reduce the world population by 10 to 15 percent using vaccines.
Vaccines against pregnancy? Otherwise I consider it fake news. Even if he had the thought he would not dare to say it out loud.
IIRC he said it at a Ted Talk, it used to be online. I've read allegations that a 'polio vaccine' his foundation distributed in Africa contained a sterilizing agent and no polo vaccine. I've not seen actual documentation.
His Foundation was kicked out of India for years after testing Gardasil on native tribes with some 15,000 adverse reactions and several deaths. At least one research paper has claimed a 30% reduction in live births among women vaccinated with Gardasil, so if correct I would classify it as a sterilizing agent.
Unfortunately looking this sort of info up has become harder. There is a massive amount of obfuscation (Its the Jews! Its Satanists!) and FUD put on line, along with straight up censorship of actual medical professionals by Youtube, Twitter and Google over the last nine months as they try and control the narrative on the Coronavirus.
The basic summary was that losing 800 million people in a nuclear or biological weapons exchange with the USA was acceptable, even desirable
Of course it would be desirable, since the more likely outcome of fighting the US would be 1.1 Billion Chinese deaths. (The US would render China unlivable for a generation at least.) The problem is that the Chinese were too foolish to understand how badly it would go for them. Probably someone rational saw those transcripts and pointed out the flawed assumption that the US would allow survivors, especially of the ruling party.
IIRC the summary of the meeting was USA is a power in decline, China is a power on the rise. There is never a peaceful change over from one dominant empire to the other, so war is inevitable. War should be held off until China is in a position of superiority.
The USA has superiority in nuclear weapons so China cannot expect to match them and should rely on biological weapons. Even in a nuclear stand off China will win because America had gone soft and would not accept 150 million deaths while China would accept 800 million.
A very sociopathic viewpoint, that ignores the fact that the US military leadership can be just as sociopathic based on past actions.
Probably someone rational saw those transcripts and pointed out the flawed assumption that the US would allow survivors, especially of the ruling party.
Possibly. China has been working hard to force its neighbors & trading partners into its political orbit. Its also been building a huge conventional navy, with little emphasis on nuclear first strike capability.
There is never a peaceful change over from one dominant empire to the other, so war is inevitable.
I believe that this quote is from the China meeting and as such is their opinion. In actual fact, the transition from British Empire to US 'domination' was peaceful, albeit due to bookend wars. For PRC China, that change was a non-event.