...but how can you TELL? Is there a test or something....?

Just Finished Reading: Our Own Worst Enemy – The Assault From Within on Modern Democracy by Tom Nichols (FP: 2021) [219pp] 

I was definitely not alone in being surprised by the recent US Presidential election result. One thing it did show me, and no doubt many others, is that I clearly do not understand the American psyche. I’ve been working on my USA:WTF project over the last few years and I’m planning to ramp it up a bit further going forward but I’ll also be reading a sprinkling of books prompted by the US election and this is the first of them. 

To begin with I wasn’t that impressed with the authors analysis of why Donald Trump and his MAGA cronies were elected the first time (what the author would say about a repeat election after a 4 year break I can imagine). He seemed to be saying that we in the West, and not just in the USA, have had it too good for too long and, no doubt like those cheering the outbreak of war in 1914, were eagerly looking forward causing a bit of fun chaos and breaking stuff. This, I thought, was more than a little crass. Firstly, it posited that everyone has ‘never had it so good’ (which to be honest in an absolute historical sense is true, but even so) as if no one out there is suffering – even comparatively – and second that this (relative) comfort was responsible for us “hungering for the Apocalypse”. As I said, crass. 

Thankfully, his arguments improved a great deal after that! Part of the problem, he maintained, is resentment prompted by both disparities in wealth (sometimes considerable if not actually obscene) and the fact that social media in particular can show us – if we feel the need/desire to check – just how much other people have that many are apparently denied. It's not just the yachts and private planes but the ability to peek directly into your neighbours living rooms – via real-estate websites (apparently an addictive ‘hobby’ to many) - to count TVs, bathrooms & parking spaces to say nothing of local house prices! Such things have, again according to the author, severely strained the idea of citizenship and replaced it with envy. What is worse, indeed corrosive, is the idea that Democracy should solve this and has singularly failed to do so. The ‘problem’ isn’t the system that has produced such wide disparities in wealth and comfort but the political failure to respond to it (of course disregarding the fact that we, generally, get the government we ‘deserve’ because we, as voters, put them there. The ‘fault’ of politics is OUR fault). The answer to this ‘conundrum’? Get rid of Democracy and put someone in power to ‘deal’ with the issue and sort it out. Of course, this is where a deep ignorance of history comes in handy. 

Naturally, social media comes in for a LOT of criticism throughout this slim volume. Not only does it allow people to snuggle into their own silo it also allows (indeed encourages) people to marinate in a sea disinformation and misinformation that feeds peoples existing prejudices. Critical thinking is ignored or actively discouraged and conspiracy ‘theories’ are given free rein to damage everything and everyone they touch. In that kind of environment trust, in each other or in government institutions (or indeed in the very idea of government) begins to evaporate and Democracy itself becomes progressively questioned and questionable. Such trends tend not to end well. 

After a rather shaky start I eventually found at least some of the authors arguments somewhere between interesting and persuasive. Although I certainly don’t think he ‘nailed it’ I do think he was on to something and I’ll be following some of his ideas going forward. I do agree that some of the greatest dangers to Democratic government come from inside rather than outside and that these dangers need addressing. Democracy, across the world and not just in the US, is far from perfect and can be improved for the benefit of all. But we need the will and the belief to see it as worth fixing, worth saving. I believe it is. The alternative, however enticing to some, will be far from pleasant. More US election prompted books to come – although not all will be as ‘on the nose’ as this one! Worth a read if only to prompt thought and discussion. 

Happy Birthday: Leigh Douglass Brackett (December 7, 1915 – March 24, 1978) was an American author and screenwriter. Nicknamed "the Queen of Space Opera," she was one of the most prominent female writers during the Golden Age of Science Fiction. As a screenwriter, she was best known for her collaborations with director Howard Hawks, mainly writing Westerns and crime films. She also worked on an early draft of The Empire Strikes Back (1980), elements of which remained in the film; she died before it went into production.

In 1956, her book The Long Tomorrow made her the first woman ever shortlisted for the Hugo Award for Best Novel, and, along with C. L. Moore, one of the first two women ever nominated for a Hugo Award. In 2020, she posthumously won a Retro Hugo for her novel The Nemesis From Terra, originally published as "Shadow Over Mars" (Startling Stories, Fall 1944).

On December 31, 1946, at age 31, Brackett married another science fiction writer, Edmond Hamilton, in San Gabriel, California. Fellow LASFS member Ray Bradbury served as best man. Bradbury and Robert Heinlein were long-time close friends of Brackett's. She moved with Hamilton to Kinsman, Ohio.

Edmond Hamilton died in February 1977 in Lancaster, California, of complications following kidney surgery. Brackett died there in March 1978, of cancer, at age 62.

Just Finished Reading: Am I Normal? - The 200-Year Search for Normal People (And Why They Don’t Exist) by Sarah Chaney (FP: 2022) [268pp] 

If you’re anything like me, you have no doubt at some point in your life wondered if you’re ‘normal’. That question was certainly hovering in the back of my mind for a good chunky of my teenage years. But at some point, I, no doubt like many others, had to make a decision: Do I spend an increasing amount of mental energy trying to fit in with those around me (coupled with the resultant stress of wondering if my efforts would be good enough) or do I just say ‘Fuck It’ and decide to me more of myself – although never my WHOLE self – in public and let the chips fall where they may. You guessed correctly if you thought I went to route of increased authenticity...  

Apparently, hard as it is to believe, people in previous ages never questioned their normality nor thought of themselves as normal (or not). They certainly compared themselves to others around them but never held themselves up to a general standard of normality and tried to figure their degree of deviation from the norm. That is something quite new, quite recent, and only really goes back a few hundred years – at best. It also shouldn’t really exist. The well-known Bell curve or Normal Distribution was devised by astronomers to help plot the paths of celestial bodies. They were SO effective at this that statisticians in the 19th century began using them to plot other things, and quite effectively too (although they needed some ‘massaging’ from time to time to ‘fit’). It wasn’t long before human attributes were being charted and the growing insurance industry started using such curves to predict their liabilities and increase their profit margins. It wasn’t long after that that ‘normal’ or ‘average’ became optimal, preferred, something to be aimed at and attained. Normal was superior, anything else was inferior, wrong, abnormal. Less than average weight? Something is wrong. More than average weight? Some is, again, wrong. If you’ve ever been weighed in a doctor's office you’ll probably have been compared to a chart and told that your BMI (Body Mass Index) is too low or, more likely, too high. What they don’t tell you is that the BMI chart is largely based on data from middle-class, white, American males – and probably from some decades ago. BMI figures had to be modified to fit women, don’t apply to athletes and has great trouble applying to other racial groups. It's also far from alone in its divergence between normal/average and the real world. Simply put, the average human does not exist. The more attributes you measure, the smaller the likelihood that any one person will meet them. Sure, there are people of average height, but of average height, weight, skin tone, eye colour, age, education and.... Very quickly you eliminate everyone from the count. 

I’ve read a little bit about this before in ‘The End of Average – How to Succeed in a World that Values Sameness’ by Todd Rose where the author destroys the very idea of average anything. The problem with using the average or idea of the normal as a valuable target to be attained is its toxicity. If the Normal is the highest Good and very few people fit into that category then ‘normal’ becomes just a stick to beat people with and, of course, a BIG stick to beat yourself with. Are you ‘normal’ - whatever THAT means? Do you have a ‘normal’ body? Normal feelings? A normal mind? Is your sex life normal? Are your kids normal and, if not, is that your fault? No doubt you can feel the anxiety building already. In just one small example you can see what I mean – children's weight. One of the first things done to a new-born is being weighed. So, is the baby a ‘normal’ birthweight? Then is the baby gaining weight in line with normal expectations? Too slowly? Too much? I know that my mother was quite anxious to keep hitting that golden ‘normal’ growth line for my sister and, no doubt earlier for my brother and me. Obviously, no one ever questioned where exactly the chart came from and how the data was derived in the first place. But it's important to understand what is meant by this kind of normal especially when it hardly has anything much to do with messy reality. 

I enjoyed this a great deal. Much like the previous book by Todd Rose it made me question the very idea, the very concept, of normality. I’ve never really regarded myself as ‘normal’ in any particular sense. It was nice to see that the very idea of normality is a castle built in mid-air without any real foundation to speak of – most especially when ‘abnormal’ is SUCH a pejorative term. Definitely recommended for anyone who has ever struggled to be, or appear to be, normal...