It’s about raw political power:
That’s what it’s about. The president and his followers want to be able to labor on our behalf, and to make all of our important decisions. Many of them, like their European counterparts, firmly believe this is the best way to achieve the common good. Others are driven by disgust with contemporary America and the American people, and see themselves acting to save the world from our own worst instincts and impulses. Still others are elitists who despise the common people, who are so plainly unworthy of respect. Whatever the motivation, the “solution” is to restrict the freedom of Americans in order that the superior beings who currently control the executive branch can dictate policy.
Well, if “labor on our behalf” means lots of golf and expensive vacations, mostly at taxpayer expense.
A couple days ago, InstaPundit linked to this posting by Dave Freer titled, “You So Can Do It.” While the central issue of that post is about authors getting out from under the thumb of the publishing establishment, the point is that the establishment views itself as an elite gatekeeper. It portrays authors as unable to do things on their own, so they need to hand over the product (and most of the money) to the “elites.” The author frames it in a broader “can do” attitude that seems to be disappearing (or being killed).
Human behavior is shaped by a cocktail of nature and nurture, and as far as I can work out I got a double ration of bloody-minded obstinacy from long generations of both sides genetically, and three times that in nurture. So: I’m 5’6” and I have been told a stiff breeze will blow me away (No it bloody well won’t. I will wear a weight-belt if need be.). I ended up with a sports bursary paying for some of my college education, and I still take part in what (for reasons unknown) people call extreme sports.
And you know what? There was so often someone saying ‘you can’t do that, Dave.’ until they eventually gave up in disgust, because I never did listen. Eventually I suppose it will kill me. Shrug. I would rather die as I have lived, and in the meanwhile enjoy myself, especially proving them wrong.
We shape the way we see the world through our own experience, and what expect others to do and think through our own perception. It takes a rare honest man who can really get into the head of a thief for example. When I hear publishing executives whine about how people will steal everything if they don’t DRM it to the hilt… and I wonder if it says more about them and their morality, than about their customers. My own point of view is well, _you_ CAN do it. If you can’t get there by the straightforward brawn, you can get there by brain, and if you can’t do it by simple intellectual bludgeoning, you can do it by finding away around. Whether you’re talking about exceeding lightspeed, overcoming ecological disaster, or publishing… you can. Human’s have, over and over and over again. The only thing that stops them is other humans.
Where you end up may not be where you planned to go, but you won’t be sitting around on your hands waiting to die.
Which I guess brings me around to publishing. For the last twenty years at least, that has been the land of ‘can’t’. It’s the favorite tune of the legacy gatekeepers, particularly those who want me to fit their mold and sing their song. I know that song. It’s lyrics go ‘people like you, we’d be better off without’, which from their point of view, may well be true. I found it very odd, and of course being a good little sheep who always likes others to think and decide for him, I listened to every word, and gave up any interest in writing.
Or not. I always listen to people who say that, don’t I?
I’ve always avoided bringing politics into my posts, but it seems to me that publishing went wrong when they brought political philosophy into their strategy. The strategy essentially boils down to : You’re inferior. We know what is good for you. Trust us, we (the government) will look after you. Oddly enough every good communist or socialist I ever met (and yes, I have met some earnest good people believing in these philosophies), wanted to _help_ people, but assumed they’d be ones deciding what was good for those (inferior) people. Not them, of course. The first part of the philosophy is often left unstated but, hell, if I’m not inferior, why would ‘we’ know better than ‘me’ what is good for me?
And out of this Nanny-state-in-publishing spilled into a sequence of pro-their-political-outlook (because it is good for you) and anti anything that actually smelled of the individual triumphing, especially without authority helping. The core message, the mantra of ‘nanny’ is just “You CAN’T. We know what is best for you (and for readers) and you CAN’T DO THAT. If you try, it’ll all end in tears. And thus a lot of what they brought out was predictions of the misery those who didn’t sing their song (and march in time to their music) would bring. The BAD people, who weren’t good (the correct kind of) government…
Which, in a nutshell is why books with “Can-do” attitude are out of fashion. (which – as a South African, I was raised to believe was an intrinsic American value. My Dad picked it up from his dealing with ‘Yanks’ in the war. Do you know how weird I found the shattering of this illusion? It’s certainly still true of some… but there is an awful lot of ‘I can’t, nanny must. I’ll be good so she will’, which makes me want to puke in my breakfast.).
The trouble with this is that an endless diet of ‘can’t, need nanny,’ eventually has the effect of stopping many people even thinking of trying ‘can’. Yes, it does make them more governable, I suppose. But if the world — and the US — needs anything right now it’s ‘Can do’. The hell with nanny – whether she’s your big corporate (who mostly evolve to follow this trend) or a publisher, or the government… decisions they make for you are still made by individuals, and, let’s be real here, most corporate execs, editors and politicians haven’t got a lot of space (or evidence) to tell anyone they’re superior in their judgement of what’s good for them.
Please read the whole thing.
You make a good point Larry. But I think the main reason they have such a sour disposition is they can’t figure out where the red button is.