Last Chance to vote: CLFA Book of the Year Award.

Only days left to vote on Conservative-Libertarian Fiction Alliance Book of the Year Award. Voting is open to the public and ends on June 30, 2016.

The nominees are (in alphabetical order by author's last name):

The Notice by Daniella Bova
The Cinder Spires: The Aeronaut's Windlass by Jim Butcher
Son of the Black Sword by Larry Correia
Honor at Stake by Declan Finn
By the Hands of Men Book Two: Into the Flames by Roy M. Griffis
The Devil's Dictum by Frederick-Heimbach
Amy Lynn, Golden Angel by Jack July
Amy Lynn, The Lady Of Castle Dunn by Jack July
Her Brother's Keeper by Mike Kupari
The Violet Crow by Michael Sheldon

All titles are available for purchase on Amazon.

To qualify, books had to be novel length (minimum 50k words) fiction first published in the calendar year 2015. Self-published, small press and traditionally published works are all eligible, including e-book and audio formats. Authors need not be members of the CLFA or even consider themselves to be politically aligned with the CLFA in order to be nominated and win. Books were nominated by members of the CLFA closed Facebook group. The top ten nominees are the finalists.

The link to the survey is here.

For more information about Conservative-Libertarian Fiction Alliance, please visit their website.

Good luck to all the nominees!

Ayn Rand and Marvel Movies: The Catholic Geek Radio Show 6/12/16

Declan Finn was nice enough to let me talk Objectivism on his show. (I am well aware of the fact that discussing an atheist novelist/philosopher on a show with "Catholic" in its name is an unusual endeavor, but that's just how we roll.)

Ayn Rand has been surging in popularity lately for a variety of reasons, none of them good. She claimed one of her goals in writing Atlas Shrugged was to keep it from becoming a prophecy, but I can swear at times that some of the current politicians grew up admiring Randian villains. Be that as it may, conservatives and libertarians have a love-hate relationship with Rand's work, dismissing her as a flake one moment and claiming her as their own the next. Both attitudes are misguided. Rand does have a lot to offer, but her philosophy is unique and does not fit comfortably into any of the usual labels.

In this podcast, I address the most common criticisms of Objectivism (selfishness and altruism mean something entirely different in Rand's world, but because she was not a leftist, she had not been able to re-define the language) and add some of my own based on my reading of both Rand's fiction and assorted essays.

Later on we talk Objectivism in other fiction, including non-Objectivist authors who have similar themes (the answer will shock you!) and finally the burning question of whether Iron Man or Captain America would make a better Randian hero.

The link to the broadcast is here. Apologies for the low sound quality. The show was pre-recorded for scheduling reasons and I was using less than stellar equipment. Please feel free to comment with follow-up questions and I will answer them as soon as I'm able.

   

Don't Diss the Fans!

Art and politics are, and have always been, uneasy neighbors. After all, artists are no different from the rest of us. They have opinions, whether on politics or religion or life in general, and they face a choice as to how to express them. Whether we read a novel or watch a movie, listen to a song or admire a painting in a gallery, we usually get at least glimpse of the creator's worldview, and, as they say in certain circles, it's a feature, not a bug.

Sometimes, this worldview is expressed so strongly, and contradicts our own so entirely, that we as consumers have choices of our own.

1. We can question or change our own assumptions and beliefs (unlikely).

2. We can ignore the parts of the creator's expressed message that we dislike, but still enjoy the art on the whole. Those of us who are not of the Left are forced to perform this exercise on an almost daily basis as we consume the products of the entertainment industry fueled by values and desires often very different from ours.

3. We can decide to stay away from this particular creator's work altogether and find art more in line with our values and beliefs. While this approach is practiced in some communities, and occasionally gets publicity, it is rare among garden-variety consumers. After all, it is easier to endure an occasional offense than entirely give up on something one generally enjoys. But it does happen, and usually for one simple reason.

Brace yourself for the Big Reveal of THE most reliable way for an artist to lose the fans, quite possibly forever.

Ready?

You lose your fans by not giving them the respect they deserve.

When you signal that fans are unimportant to you, suddenly you become unimportant to them.

The best example, at least to those with a memory longer than a few months? Dixie Chicks. In fact, a couple of days ago, a friend used "Dixie Chicked" as a verb.

To those in need of a reminder, Dixie Chicks were at the height of their popularity at the start of this century, lauded as the most successful female country band in history and beloved even by most non-county fans for their spirited style and all around talent. Then, they decided to express a political opinion--their opposition to the war in the Middle East--which happened to be at odds with the majority of the country music community. Not a big deal, in itself. Willie Nelson has been a well known hippie, and not just for his attachment to weed, but his fans love him all the more for it. Sure, in the process the Chicks decided to pick a fight with a fellow country singer, but hey, entertainers get into fights, right? Some people's eyebrows were raised, but it mostly blew over.

Until, of course, they famously disavowed both the war and the American President while performing on foreign soil. The fans took it personally, and the reaction was immediate and devastating, culminating in an unprecedented public destruction of Dixie Chicks CD's by former fans. And still I believe the band would have survived the controversy, but they decided to cross yet another line. They declared, unequivocally, that country music as a genre was unworthy, that the fans were ignorant, and from now on, they intended to move into rock.

Leaving aside that fact that their talents were not particularly suited to rock music, they had committed an unforgivable error. They had dismissed the legions of fans who were an integral part of their success, saying essentially, "Oh, you're upset? Ha! We don't need you. We'll move on to a better class of fan and leave you in the dust."

The result, for those who forgot or lost track, has been predictable. Dixie Chicks were praised and defended by the Left, showered with Grammy Awards for their new album, and shortly after just... disappeared. Country music fans have moved on, and rock lovers have never fully embraced their crossover after the initial excitement. I hear the Chicks are back now, taking potshots at Donald Trump at their latest tour. I can't bring myself to care. I, too, have moved on.

Good ol' Willie, though? Still a hippie, still beloved, even with all the legal troubles. Fans are forgiving that way. Unless you diss them.

Not everyone has learned from the Chicks' example, not by a long shot. Recently, we have been hit with two spectacular fan-dissing examples, and the full ramifications are yet to be seen.

First, Bruce Springsteen cancelled his concert in North Carolina to protest the transgender bathroom law. Mind you, Springsteen is a rocker whose music has wide appeal, but he has always especially connected to blue collar audiences. His best, most popular songs speak to the common man. And yes, he is an unabashed liberal who has done fundraisers for Democrats. That is news to no one. Springsteen's conservative fans have accepted that his politics was not theirs and dutifully spent the  big bucks they could not very well afford on his concerts and merchandise.

Then why the outrage now? Because for the first time, Bruce and his band have made a decision to specifically hurt the fans who wanted to see the concert in a place Bruce no longer finds acceptable. It is one thing to boycott a state (foolish and hypocritical for a band who performs overseas in countries with truly oppressive laws, but that's beside the point). It's even OK to cancel a scheduled concert--it happens for a variety of reasons, and fans are used to that. However, to cancel two days in advance, when fans have already booked hotels and non-refundable airline reservations, when some of them were already in town, anticipating what for many would have been one of the most memorable events of the year? To then double down and speak of how everyone involved deserved to be hurt financially while you're sitting on a figurative pile of gold provided by the fans?

THAT is dissing the fans. THAT is telling them you don't care and you don't want "their kind" enjoying your art. The state, the town, the concert venue will recover. The venue, in fact, is likely to have insurance. The fans, the ones for whom Springsteen music has been a soundtrack to their lives? They've been hit where it hurts, and I don't mean the pocketbook. If I had to call it right now, I think there will be a non-trivial percentage of fans who will never set foot at at Springsteen concert, even as they are unable to entirely give up on his old albums.

The next example is more obscure to those not inside the loosely defined geek culture, but is actually more shocking to the outsiders once the facts become better known. Apparently, Captain America, the straight-as-an-arrow superhero originally conceived by two Jewish writers as the ultimate American Nazi fighter, has been... wait for it... a Nazi agent all along. That's right, the brain trust behind Marvel comics, no doubt inspired by near universal embrace of their iconic character by the mainstream thanks to the movie franchise, has decided to spit in the face of life-long fans for the sake of what today passes for originality.

Nerd rage level at the announcement was predictably high. In response, the genius in charge cackled like a villain in a Bond movie and more or less declared the fans had to suck it up. It's too early to say what the damage will be to the Marvel comics brand. Anecdotal evidence points to massive abandonment of subscriptions by once dedicated fans, but only time will tell if those who went away would stay away permanently. In any case, aside from the writers' strange and questionable motivations, in a purely business sense it was a monumentally stupid decision. I only hope Marvel Studios has enough sane players in charge to keep this mess from spilling into the movie franchise.

All of this is a very long way to express a very simple message that creators of any stripe forget at their peril: no matter how big you are, your fans are the ones who made you. Show them respect, or be prepared for the consequences.

Chasing Freedom Rates 7 of 10 Fell Deeds: The Injustice Gamer Review

The Injustice Gamer was nice enough to give my novel a proper condemnation.

Cower not, fierce reader! Today, we have a new book to review: Chasing Freedom by Marina Fontaine.  This is a fine work exemplifying the lengths that Social Justice should be striving for. But that is the setting, and not our story. Our story indeed commits many sins against Social Justice. Let the darkness of Injustice come forth!

To begin with, our story is one of rebellion against oppressive government. Cities in the United States have been abandoned to the Earth, in favor of Megalopolis living. Government determines your fitness for college, and assigns most jobs. Simple protesting is illegal. Mexico has walled off the border, and Canada is willing to take those that can make the trip.

Read the rest of the denouncement here while I hang my head in shame and suffer through the latest post from The Guardian as penance.

Oh, who am I kidding? I'm half-way through replaying GamerGate Sings. Talk to you later!

Book Review: On the Existence of Gods by Dominic Saltarelli and Vox Day

At this point in my life I try to confine my book reading to fiction, in part because there is so much interesting  non-fiction reading available on various blogs, and in part because I firmly believe that fiction shapes our society much more reliably and effectively than most other influences short of cataclysmic events. Nevertheless, when On the Existence of Gods--to be abbreviated for the rest of the post as OTEOG to save space--came up on my radar, I was intrigued enough to take a break from fiction and give it a try.

It is true that the impasse between those of us who believe in Higher Power of some kind and those commonly identified as non-believers will not be resolved through conversation and argument. Anyone who doubts me is welcome to pick a current hot-topic political issue and try to bring an opponent over to their side. (Don't do it now. I want you to keep reading, not to start a flame war on social media or  tick off family members. But if you haven't tried it yet and are up for a challenge, just see how it goes for you.)

However, just because we can't talk each other into or out of faith, does not mean that one of the central questions of human existence cannot be examined in a proper manner. Dominic Saltarelli, an atheist, and Vox Day, a Christian, took up the challenge (originally presented by PZ Meyers, who declared it impossible to present a rational argument for the existence of gods, refusing Vox Day's offer of debate back in 2008). Considering the current state of discourse in this country, you will be well advised to read Dominic's Introduction chapter of OTEOG where he describes his decision process in taking his place opposite Vox in the debate. Suffice it to say that Dominic behaved as a proper intellectual in the matter and even called out those nominally on his side for often refusing to do so. Vox, in his own Introduction, similarly points out that many believers are just as guilty of repeating tired, flawed arguments without applying the proper intellectual rigor to the process.

The book presents a three-round debate, with three anonymous judges (a Christian, an agnostic and an atheist) examining each round in detail before declaring the winner. The interesting part, of course, is not the competition itself, and frankly, I enjoyed the innovative arguments and rebuttals from both sides equally. Even the ones that did not work for the judges made me see the most basic assumptions in a different light. Without giving the arguments themselves, since that would be a sin equivalent to posting spoilers in a fiction review, I will only say that both sides quickly and thoroughly dismissed the one-liner attacks and defenses we know so well from social media fights. Unless you are very familiar with the subject, you will find plenty of surprises, both from the debate participants and the judges.

One thing that surprised me most was the difficulty of making the atheist case, or rather separating atheism from agnosticism. Many people make the mistake of conflating the two in everyday conversation, but casting doubt is one thing while taking it to the level of logically defending the non-existence of something is completely different. I almost wished at times for a three-way debate with an agnostic because I suspect that under the conditions of the debate such a person would have been most likely to win. Both sides, for example, used the "we don't know everything" argument to one extent or another, and the "not enough information for a decision" could have followed very logically from there. Perhaps, in the spirit of the trends in today's fiction, we might someday expect a sequel with just such a twist.

Not that the argument for gods (small g) was particularly easy to make. In a way the extra broad definition kept working against Vox in many cases because at some point the line between a "god" and a purely materialistic alternative becomes so blurred as to lend more credence to the negative side. The most fascinating example for me was a discussion of whether our moral code is externally pre-determined by some form of Creator or simply a by-product of our biology. That required further discussion on whether moral codes are universal--something often dismissed offhand by atheists and taken too freely for granted by believers--and it made for an interesting follow up section.

Who won? Dominic for some reason decided to give the final result in the Introduction, but at the risk of sounding as a "trophy-for-everyone" schoolmarm, I'll say that in this case it truly all was about how you play the game. If you're looking for a break from the Internet-style debates and want to see how the Big Issues should be discussed, check this book out. Twitter will still be there when you return.

Purchase On the Existence of Gods on Amazon

Random Thoughts on Freedom (Speculative Fiction Cantina Interview)

On May 6th, I had a great time talking to S. Evan Townsend of Speculative Fiction Cantina online radio show. You can check out the podcast here. Sadly, Ms. Pembroke Sinclair, whose photo appears in the slider, had an abrupt change of plans, so my intrepid host was stuck with yours truly for the full hour.

I have done several online radio appearances, but the flow of this one surprised me. We ended up speaking less of my novel, specifically, than of the general theme of freedom and how some people appreciate it more than others. While "don't know what you got till it's gone" is a cliche, like most cliches it became so for a reason, and it applies to freedom perhaps more than to other values.

During the interview, the closest analogy that popped into my head is that healthy individuals don't truly know what it's like to be chronically sick. They can understand it through research or being around the sick, but they never quite appreciate what a gift it is to be healthy, free of pain, with all of one's organs functioning as intended. I did touch on this in one of my earlier posts when I spoke of gratitude. We don't tend to be grateful for what we don't notice on a daily basis. Health is a given. As a cancer survivor, I can confirm that once recovery is complete, the temporary gratitude wears off and the little annoyances of life very quickly outweigh the simple joy of being alive, mobile and relatively whole.

So it is for Americans with freedom. I know we're all aware that our country has major issues on that front. But not only are we more free than nearly every other nation, we have inside us an ingrained assumption that this is a natural state of human existence. Even those eager to trade some of their freedom away in exchange for either tangible rewards or a promise of security come from the knowledge that freedom is theirs, something that belongs to them at the outset and something they can choose to diminish, as foolhardy as it might be.

As I pointed out to my host during our discussion, most of the world does not have that assumption. On the contrary, it is entirely foreign to them. Immigrants who come to this country, even those who seek not the promise of economic advancement but specifically an escape from oppression, have a hard time adjusting to the concept. A more common premise throughout the world, whether civilized or less so, is that freedom is something granted to you by the government (or your friendly warlord, as the case may be). You don't even have a chance to trade your freedom away. It is doled out in small pieces to those deemed deserving. There's a quote from V. I. Lenin somewhere on the 'net precisely to that effect. Which, of course, makes it something entirely different from freedom as we understand it.

I think the reason for the current proliferation of dystopian novels is that time is right for us to once again to start appreciating the baseline of what we have. Just as zombie and vampire novels allow us to work out our anxieties as to our safety and lack of trust in our fellow human beings (hey, that's a whole 'nother blog post right there, isn't it?), politically themed dystopias show us a "what if" of freedom lost so we can vicariously put ourselves into that situation and then come back to our normal life with a new appreciation of what we still have.

Since this was originally meant to be a self-promotional post (yeah, I'm not great at those), what I tried to do with my particular take on the genre is to not only scare us to the possibilities, for I believe the real world had already scared us enough. My main goal was to show that lost freedom can in fact come back, if sometimes at a terrible cost.

The problem freedom fighters across all times and societies face is that the more entrenched the forces of oppression, the less natural the instinct for freedom becomes. We as Americans are not yet at that point, but should keep that lesson in mind as we watch the world around us and make decisions, whether it's to choose a political leader or to speak up against censorship (looking at you, Facebook!). We should respond to any threat and refuse to give ground so that we, or our children, would never have to find out the cost of bringing back something that we had no business losing in the first place.

The Culture War in Perspective

Machine Trooper, a self described "Pop Culture Scrutineer Supreme from the Manosphere" gives his take on the Culture War using this real-world historical analogy:

For generations centrists and everyone right-of-center simply have not shown up for the culture wars. Predictably, the leftists have blitzed right through battlefields of opinion and ideas unopposed–like the Red Army rolling through eastern Poland in 1939–so that their monopoly on the flow of information, including creative expression, was ironclad.

And yet...

Marxists (cultural and otherwise) are not only vulnerable, they’ve become arrogant from never being challenged for so long, and prove to be weak, inept cowards when confronted by a smart, determined opposition. They are beatable. Very much so.

I have stated this many times, albeit with less flair, to my despairing friends in the loosely defined pro-freedom cultural movement. The reason the Left seems to have unbreakable dominance in culture is because our side has not been on the field. Oh sure, we get excited about this or that issue once in a while, make some noise, occasionally even win, BUT - and this is crucial - once the excitement dies out, we, to continue with the military theme "declare victory and go home," leaving the battlefield to those more determined (or those less preoccupied with the general business of life, such as family and day jobs, as the case might be).

The only way to win long term, to reclaim the hearts and minds of the people who have fallen under the siren song of the Left, is not with political gains, nor with more educational materials, although both have their place. The real answer lies in entertainment, and more specifically in storytelling. "The Narrative" is a popular expression nowadays, usually utilized in negative, politicized context, but it need not be so. Simply put, the side that tells the better story wins. And the more I look around at the amount of raw (and not-so-raw) talent in the pro-freedom movement, the more convinced I become that we can do this. We can win, handily, and have fun doing it. 

It was with that goal in mind that a fellow author Kia Heavy and I formed Conservative-Libertarian Fiction Alliance group on Facebook, and the response has been both enthusiastic and gratifying. Since Machine Trooper has done such an excellent job summarizing our purpose and progress to date, I suggest you read the rest of his post here. Afterwards, I hope you follow his advice to check both our website and the Facebook group and join us in our battle to advance the cause of freedom through promoting high-quality fiction.

These are trying days for freedom lovers, but do not despair. Politics is transitory, but art endures. And because the best art is rooted in truth, this is the battle we will not lose. All we need to do is keep showing up.