Re: Snivel

1

Some people just aren't.

My dad was 16 when his mom was dying of cancer, and he had a summer trip coming up where they were supposed to bike all over Europe, and everyone agreed that since she was going to die anyway, he might as well not miss the bike trip. So he was in Europe when his mother died.

I cannot make sense of this story on any level.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 7:03 AM
horizontal rule
2

Also "Snivel" would be a good name for a dog.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 7:04 AM
horizontal rule
3

How much cheaper is gas in Mexico?


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 7:05 AM
horizontal rule
4

Pretty cheap if you go with the street tacos.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 7:07 AM
horizontal rule
5

Having watched someone due and now starting to see what teenagers are like from the perspective of a patent, I can see wanting to send away a teenager when someone was dying.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 7:08 AM
horizontal rule
6

This thread is already so tender and sweet.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 7:14 AM
horizontal rule
7

1: Can't you picture it as a scene in a movie?

Heebie's dad (weeping): No, Mom! I can't go!

Heebie's grandma: You must go. This is your chance to live! Here, take this pendant. Wherever you go, I will be you.


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 7:17 AM
horizontal rule
8

Wherever you go, I will be you.

That's interesting, peep! But maybe you left out "with".


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 7:19 AM
horizontal rule
9

I'm not very sentimental. I guess I don't see the point.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 7:22 AM
horizontal rule
10

9: Ok, Spock.


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 7:57 AM
horizontal rule
11

You have a housekeeper?


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 8:12 AM
horizontal rule
12

I think quality of childhood and sentimentality are orthogonal. Also personal politics, probably, in terms of looking forward vs looking back. If I think hard enough I can probably find people in each octant.


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 8:13 AM
horizontal rule
13

I think quality of childhood and sentimentality are orthogonal.

I agree with this.

What do you mean by personal politics?


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 8:28 AM
horizontal rule
14

11: Yes and I love her very, very much.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 8:29 AM
horizontal rule
15

I meant whether you pine for the good ol' days--which seems sentimental-like but I think it can be something else--or are pushing towards a better future. And I mean orthogonal in that I think the 80s were a shit time but I get all gooshy over those pictures of busy malls (which I think were an awful trend, but I have many good memories of them).


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 9:08 AM
horizontal rule
16

We used to drive to the mall about this time of year to buy Christmas gifts for each other. It was a nice road trip.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 9:25 AM
horizontal rule
17

It was in the same direction as going to Mexico, but we stopped like 20 hours too soon.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 9:33 AM
horizontal rule
18

16 is so horrifying I'm literally going to go and buy liquour right now.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 9:38 AM
horizontal rule
19

I was raised in a very small town. It was two hours to get to a store that didn't sell bait next to the sweaters.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 9:43 AM
horizontal rule
20

5: I second that!

If you're super low on sentimentality but cry ridiculously in movies does that signify something? Asking for a friend and/or president.


Posted by: chill | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 9:56 AM
horizontal rule
21

It means you are responsible for the career of Steven Spielberg; do with that what you will. I'm sure you'll take the honorable course.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 10:01 AM
horizontal rule
22

I cried when the shark got blown up.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 10:07 AM
horizontal rule
23

That was Deep Blue Sea, a totally respectable B-movie that ate Sam Jackson.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 10:11 AM
horizontal rule
24

And LL Cool J makes a sushi joke. Great stuff.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 10:12 AM
horizontal rule
25

Yes, I liked that movie.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 10:12 AM
horizontal rule
26

1. This is so much how I was raised. I'm okay with it. I have one sister (of my parents' eight children) who isn't this way, and she is suffering our family's current disintegration much more than the rest of us.
2. I think the word you wanted was "sniffle."


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 10:40 AM
horizontal rule
27

If you're super low on sentimentality but cry ridiculously in movies does that signify something? Asking for a friend and/or president.

This is me!


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 10:40 AM
horizontal rule
28

And as I know you suspect: It means you're a bad person.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 10:41 AM
horizontal rule
29

My complicated feelings of nostalgia have been focused on my favorite podcast, Good Christian Fun, about evangelical pop culture of the 90s and 00s. A guest comes on and gives their "guestimony" about their history with faith stuff (often complicated and traumatic) and then they shift gears to talking about their nostalgia for their favorite Christian music album from when they were a teenager. Speaking of exvangelicals, our own Adam Kotsko has a fantastic piece on evangelicalism and exvangelicalism that I don't think I saw posted here yet.


Posted by: Unfoggetarian: "Pause endlessly, then go in" (9) | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 11:38 AM
horizontal rule
30

23-25:

I thought I was nearly alone in liking that movie. I saw it in the theater and the audience loved Samuel L. Jackson's mid-dramatic speech death.

A favorite moment of mine is when one of the lead scientists arms has just been bitten off by a giant shark and another member of the team cries out "He's hemorrhaging!" You think?


Posted by: AcademicLurker | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 11:39 AM
horizontal rule
31

Haven't you ever heard of a spoiler alert.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 11:47 AM
horizontal rule
32

Anyway, it's on Netflix now.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 11:50 AM
horizontal rule
33

Might be worth reading the link in 29 alongside this one, which I think I got from Anne Helen Petersen's Twitter or something similar.

Indeed, as scholars have gathered more data concerning evangelicals' views of Trump and his policies, it seems increasingly clear that specifically religious or "moral" considerations played at best a modest role in driving white evangelical support for the President. And yet, I think it is worth asking why the myth of a discrete evangelical voting bloc motivated by explicitly religious concerns persists. Why, for example, do so many pundits - and their readers - continue to believe that evangelical leaders hold the power to sway presidential elections? Why do candidates - on both the left and the right - continue to pepper their stump speeches with targeted appeals to religious voters? And why do prominent newspapers continue to publish op-eds suggesting that better messaging on the part of Democratic candidates might prompt an evangelical exodus from the Republican coalition?
Part of the explanation, as I argue in a forthcoming book, can be traced to a critical but underexamined transformation in the institutional structure of American Protestantism. In short, for much of American history, Protestant religious elites actually did have the power to shape their followers' political behavior in significant ways, at least on occasion. But the elites in question were typically theologically liberal mainline Protestants, and much of their power derived from a now-defunct ecumenical infrastructure that facilitated the transmission of information and arguments from elites to average churchgoers (and vice versa). Most of today's evangelical Protestant leaders, in contrast, possess neither the intrinsic religious authority nor the institutional resources necessary to influence their purported followers' views of particular candidates or policies. On the contrary, evangelical elites tend to take their marching orders from the men and women in the pews - men and women who, again, overwhelmingly identify as conservative Republicans.

Posted by: lurid keyaki | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 11:53 AM
horizontal rule
34

The Kotsko piece is indeed excellent.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 12:14 PM
horizontal rule
35

Fred Clark comments on Kotsko's piece (and a couple of others) over at Slactivist today.


Posted by: Dave W. | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 12:25 PM
horizontal rule
36

The link in 33 is also good, and consistent with what Kotsko says about the radically decentralized individualism of the evangelical worldview.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 12:33 PM
horizontal rule
37

Shit I probably would enjoy the 90s xtian bands stuff. Mxpx, Johnny q public, starflyer 59.


Posted by: Yoyo | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 1:30 PM
horizontal rule
38

The Kotsko piece got me wondering about how the tribe I was raised with -- the Catholics -- performed in the 2016 election.

52-45 for Trump, it turns out, but among white Catholics it was 60-37.

They don't do a similar ethnic breakdown for Protestants, but that comes to 58-39 overall, with an 81-16 edge among Evangelicals.

So I think this counts as a win for the Catholics against the Protestants. Whatever their other sins, the Papists have always been less reprehensible politically.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 2:16 PM
horizontal rule
39

Personally, I thank the Franciscans.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 2:23 PM
horizontal rule
40

I'm always glad when the Catholics turn out to be less evil than somebody else, in much the way that I find the Tory landslide heartening because it shows the citizens of some other country are as inexcusably awful as Americans. In my own fashion, I am loyal to my tribes.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 2:28 PM
horizontal rule
41

Except old white men. Try as I might, I can't come up with an excuse for us, or a favorable comparison.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 2:32 PM
horizontal rule
42

Don't trust anyone over 56.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 2:35 PM
horizontal rule
43

||

I'm having a (very civil) argument with someone about whether M4America would be universal coverage. I maintain that anything that charges premiums can't, by definition, be universal.

His argument is mainly that it's universal because it would automatically enroll newborns and, p.s., Vox calls it universal.

(Vox links to the summary of the 2018 version of the bill; this is the 2019. The relevant difference is that the max premium drops from 9.96% to 8% of income.)

Frex, a two-person household with an income of $34,000 would pay a maximum of $225/month. There would be sliding scale subsidies, but there's no information on what those would be. (No premiums at all under 200% of the FPL.)

I appeal to the Unfoggetariat: It seems blindingly obvious to me that having any premiums means a plan doesn't provide universal coverage, full stop. Right?

|>


Posted by: Sir Kraab | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 3:14 PM
horizontal rule
44

If you have to pay the premiums, it's a tax and this universal.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 3:20 PM
horizontal rule
45

The devil is in the details. There are ways to administer it where I'd call it universal -- if it's a salary deduction for anyone employed, and there are no premiums for anyone who doesn't have a salary to deduct from, I'd call that effectively universal. Like, Social Security isn't absolutely universal, but it's close enough for most purposes.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 3:25 PM
horizontal rule
46

Unfortunately there's no hard-and-fast definition like that. I think universality comes down to, is it comprehensive coverage, and does everyone have that coverage in practice.

Within those constraints, universal coverage can be funded by premiums or by taxes or both, but the standardization makes premiums look like another form of taxes - especially if they're income-scaled. Social Security taxes are technically named "insurance contributions" (FICA), but we think of them as taxes.

If it's an opportunity to pay for coverage, but lots of people can't afford it, or the sliding scale is so complicated to apply for that many do not, I would call it non-universal. But on the other end of the spectrum, if it's like $5/month for everyone who makes between $50k and $100k, it might be reasonable to call it universal.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 3:34 PM
horizontal rule
47

Hmm, very good points. Given the way it's currently being explained, it would be difficult to make it a payroll deduction -- I think the calculation is just too complex. It makes sense to think of it as a tax, but then we should call it that instead of a premium. (Among friends, I mean. I'm for calling it whatever we need to to pass the best bill we can.)



Posted by: Sir Kraab | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 3:41 PM
horizontal rule
48

I looked at the actual bill text. The numbering of subsections is a little confusing, but if I am correct in reading its (i) and (iii) as actually meaning (A) and (C), it's saying the sliding scale starts at $0 for people at the 200% FPL level ($34k for a two-person household) and scales up to to 9.69% of income for people at 600% FPL, so a two-person household earning that much, $102k, would pay $819/month.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 3:42 PM
horizontal rule
49

It looks like 8% is the figure for what a large employer can contribute to the Medicare Trust Fund in lieu of offering qualified coverage, not individual premiums.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 3:48 PM
horizontal rule
50

47: The real issue is (1) is there any practical way for an individual to screw up and go uninsured? If the answer is no, that'd it'd be really hard to not participate out of inattention or error, then that's pretty close to universal (again, like Social Security. Completely incompetent (not adjudged incompetent, just bad at getting stuff done) people get Social Security checks because the system is set up so that they will. And (2) is it still worth it for the health care provider to carefully check whether you're covered, or is coverage near-universal enough that they just sort of check ID and assume you're covered because the vast majority of people are?


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 4:06 PM
horizontal rule
51

But that kind of thing is in the regulatory setup -- do they really want it to be universal in practice?


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 4:08 PM
horizontal rule
52

Adjudged incompetent people get social security checks too. I've seen it.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 4:22 PM
horizontal rule
53

48: So the summary of the 2019 bill is wrong? Or are you reading the 2018 bill?

From the 2019 summary:

What Does It Cost Me?

Premiums, to be established by the Secretary, will be no more than 8% of individuals' or households' monthly income. ... And, individuals and families between 200 and 600 percent of the Federal Poverty Level will receive subsidies. Those below 200 percent will have no premiums or cost-sharing.

8% is also the proposed employer contribution to the trust fund.


Posted by: Sir Kraab | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 4:26 PM
horizontal rule
54

I would usually use a definition of "universal health care" for which the sentence "every advanced democracy in the world except for the US has universal health care", but certainly lots of those countries have premiums.


Posted by: Unfoggetarian: "Pause endlessly, then go in" (9) | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 4:29 PM
horizontal rule
55

I want Premium Universal Healthcare.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 4:32 PM
horizontal rule
56

is it still worth it for the health care provider to carefully check whether you're covered, or is coverage near-universal enough that they just sort of check ID and assume you're covered because the vast majority of people are?

M4America keeps employer-sponsored insurance. (Employers can opt to pay into the Medicare Trust Fund instead of offering insurance and employees can choose Medicare even if their employers offer insurance.) So providers will still have to check whether you're on Medicare or an employer plan. Standards for employer plans would be higher/stricter and so plans might be more uniform, but there would still be multiple insurers with multiple plans.


Posted by: Sir Kraab | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 4:34 PM
horizontal rule
57

do they really want it to be universal in practice?

I think M4America does. (I don't think all of the other soundalikes do.)


Posted by: Sir Kraab | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 4:43 PM
horizontal rule
58

If I like my actuary, can I keep my actuary.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 4:44 PM
horizontal rule
59

I would usually use a definition of "universal health care" for which the sentence "every advanced democracy in the world except for the US has universal health care", but certainly lots of those countries have premiums.

Another good point.


Posted by: Sir Kraab | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 4:55 PM
horizontal rule
60

Thanks, everyone. This has been quite helpful in clarifying my thinking, as is often the case here. OT, I'm feeling genuinely sentimental about this weird intellectual collective of ours.


Posted by: Sir Kraab | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 5:12 PM
horizontal rule
61

What's the point of not dying young of a preventable disease if anybody can do that?


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 12-16-19 5:34 PM
horizontal rule
62

29 and 33 links are very good.
1. making you sit through a boring and outdated musical performance
Really? Hymn-singing was the only thing about Anglicanism I actually enjoyed. All the boring time in between I was staring at the architecture and stained glass and whatnot. I would think aesthetics would be one of the few things conventional religion had going for it.
2. On the level of substance, however, it is impossible to understand contemporary evangelicalism as anything but a reaction to the counterculture of the 1960s.
and
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, most of the mainline denominations began to experience sharp attendance declines and budget shortfalls, which led to the rapid decay of the Protestant ecumenical movement
So the churches asked people to examine their consciences and they didn't want to? Is that actually the whole thing? What exactly were those churches preaching on white supremacy all the years before 1964, anyway?


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 12-17-19 4:11 AM
horizontal rule
63

I always thought it was more than the young Boomers weren't going to church and this caused the decline. I don't doubt that some of the attempts to attract young adults didn't put off some of the elders, but I don't think that was the big problem.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 12-17-19 6:17 AM
horizontal rule
64

Local people in my church we complaining in the 70s because some of the masses switched to music by a choir with guitars instead of the organ. And they were right to complain, but really a bit rude to all the people willing to play guitars before a crowd despite not being very good at playing the guitar.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 12-17-19 6:26 AM
horizontal rule
65

Christ didn't say anything about suffering the shitty guitarists.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 12-17-19 6:28 AM
horizontal rule
66

Some of them were children and he did say we were to suffer them.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 12-17-19 6:29 AM
horizontal rule
67

To come unto Him. Not to say, much less play, anything.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 12-17-19 6:31 AM
horizontal rule
68

I think maybe some people were still upset about having mass in English.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 12-17-19 6:34 AM
horizontal rule
69

English is the guitar choir of languages.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 12-17-19 7:11 AM
horizontal rule
70

I used to get hired occasionally as the fill-in drummer for the "alternative" Sunday service at a big local protestant church. It was a comparatively lucrative gig (like $100/hour for 2-3 hours [counting rehearsal]). But then one of the band members committed adultery with one of the other band members, and I think the cheated-on spouse was also in the band. And then they stopped having that alternative service.

It was like a total rock-and-roll cliché, except that shit never happened in any of my secular rock bands.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 12-17-19 8:14 AM
horizontal rule
71

You should have tried to get into Fleetwood Mac.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 12-17-19 8:18 AM
horizontal rule
72

Plus, I bet they get like $125/hour.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 12-17-19 8:25 AM
horizontal rule
73

So the summary of the 2019 bill is wrong? Or are you reading the 2018 bill?

Ah, you're right. In the 2019 version they pushed the top of the sliding scale down from 9.69% to 8%. Yesterday I read the prior version, then 2019, and thought the language was identical, but I missed that change. (They also fixed the subsection problem.)

But it's still "no more than" 8%, so potentially a flat 8% for people with employer insurance, but for probably a large majority of everyone else, significantly less than 8%. (I don't know offhand how much of the population is below 600% FPL, but 60% of the country is under 400% FPL.) And zero


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 12-17-19 8:54 AM
horizontal rule
74

Evangelicals in Brazil do it differently, motherfuckers.


Posted by: NW | Link to this comment | 12-17-19 10:00 AM
horizontal rule
75

See also a paywalled FT story from which I excerpt

"The evangelicals' support is also valuable to the government on social issues. When police charged into the São Paulo slum of Paraisópolis to break up a loud street party, nine young people were killed in the ensuing commotion. Marco Feliciano, a neo-Pentecostal pastor and congressman, was quick to speak out. 'The bandit-loving media is demonising the police and victimising the funk dances,' he wrote on Twitter. 'I want to know what those journalists would do if they couldn't sleep for four days of the week because thugs had transformed the street into a modern version of Sodom and Gomorrah.'"

Some of the "Cosy Catastrophe" scifi of the fifties (I'm thinking of John Wyndham) used to postulate Brazil as the future. I fear that may have been prophetic.


Posted by: NW | Link to this comment | 12-17-19 10:03 AM
horizontal rule
76

I used to get hired occasionally as the fill-in drummer for the "alternative" Sunday service at a big local protestant church.

My friend calls this music "Jesus Is My Boyfriend" music.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 12-17-19 10:07 AM
horizontal rule
77

"God Is My Sidepiece", we called it in my day.


Posted by: Opinionated Mary | Link to this comment | 12-17-19 10:15 AM
horizontal rule
78

"Christian Fleetwood Mac" is giving me waking nightmares, punctuated by morbid curiosity about a Jesus-centered version of "Gold Dust Woman" or "Tusk." Or "Rhiannon." (This canonical live version one of my guiltiest pleasures. It's completely terrible, don't click through! I mean it's terrible. Mmmhmmm.)


Posted by: lurid keyaki | Link to this comment | 12-17-19 10:27 AM
horizontal rule
79

I blame Stanley.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 12-17-19 10:32 AM
horizontal rule
80

Christian Fleetwood Mac would surely have the kinkiest sex and the most epic fights of any possible Fleetwood Mac.


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 12-17-19 10:47 AM
horizontal rule
81

Aztec Fleetwood Mac would have eaten each other.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 12-17-19 10:54 AM
horizontal rule
82

Well, thinking of Peter Green Fleetwood Mac as the pagan precursor is cheering me up, so let's not be too hard on Stanley.


Posted by: lurid keyaki | Link to this comment | 12-17-19 11:01 AM
horizontal rule
83

75.last It is the country of the future, and it always will be, as someone famously said.


Posted by: Barry Freed | Link to this comment | 12-17-19 11:22 AM
horizontal rule
84

I was going to say that the truly canonical live version has to be from those Buckingham Nicks concerts in Alabama, but while down the rabbit hole looking for a good version, I learned of Nicks' response to the BN album cover. (I still have the record, I'm pretty sure). My God, what epic bullshit.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 12-17-19 12:01 PM
horizontal rule
85

Quote? Link?


Posted by: NW | Link to this comment | 12-17-19 1:10 PM
horizontal rule
86

What do you want next? Journalism?


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 12-17-19 1:13 PM
horizontal rule
87

Epic bullshit, but incredible hair.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 12-17-19 1:16 PM
horizontal rule
88

"Some of the "Cosy Catastrophe" scifi of the fifties (I'm thinking of John Wyndham)"

Really, really disagree with this term as a description of a genre in general and Wyndham in particular. It is an ideological cliche developed by people who had not read Wyndham very attentively.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 12-17-19 1:20 PM
horizontal rule
89

83: Attributed to Charles de Gaulle. Was a NYT headline in 1995. Sorry, don't know how to cut and paste on my phone.


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 12-17-19 1:28 PM
horizontal rule
90

Spin that out some? That is, I recognize "cozy catastrophe" as denoting a recognizable genre, but I hadn't thought much about the connotations.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 12-17-19 1:29 PM
horizontal rule
91

I feel like I should defend using cliches to judge books one is unwilling to read.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 12-17-19 1:29 PM
horizontal rule
92

There's probably more than a thousand books. You have to take some short cuts to knowledge.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 12-17-19 1:34 PM
horizontal rule
93

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckingham_Nicks#Promotion


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 12-17-19 1:49 PM
horizontal rule
94

I used to blame that sort of music on cocaine but maybe it was hairspray still along


Posted by: NW | Link to this comment | 12-17-19 2:21 PM
horizontal rule
95

I'm away from my laptop but would definitely defend both triffids and the Kraken as cosy. Horrible things happen but the decent people survive with their decencies intact. Compare and contrast The Death of Grass.

I reread the midwich cuckoo's the other day and it is astonishing how many bullets the heroes dodge.


Posted by: NW | Link to this comment | 12-17-19 2:30 PM
horizontal rule
96

"Horrible things happen but the decent people survive with their decencies intact."

I mean, yes, but how does that differentiate them from any other novel about a catastrophe? The norm is not "horrible things happen and the decent people are killed or become monsters".
"Cosy catastrophe" is a very specific term used to describe a sort of British novel in which, supposedly, the untidy working classes are killed and the middle classes left unharmed and unaffected. I am paraphrasing here both Brian Aldiss and Jo Walton. That is not a good description of any Wyndham book. Horrific things happen to the middle class characters in all Wtndham books and they are definitely not left unaffected.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 12-17-19 2:57 PM
horizontal rule
97

The Redshirts of Wigan Pier.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 12-17-19 2:59 PM
horizontal rule
98

I mean, The War of the Worlds fits that description much better than anything by Wyndham.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 12-17-19 3:05 PM
horizontal rule
99

I'm not saying Wyndham is the only one. But horrible things happen to the middle class characters in the Death of Grass and they lose their decencies. Station Eleven horrible things happen and some do lose their decencies.

Nk Jemisin: horrible things happen and the hero literally losses his humanity.


Posted by: NW | Link to this comment | 12-17-19 3:24 PM
horizontal rule
100

Lots of middle class people die in Wyndham but none were care about and all behave decently


Posted by: NW | Link to this comment | 12-17-19 3:25 PM
horizontal rule
101

I also didn't know what Charley was talking about, but 93 almost exactly matches my assumption. (I almost wrote "this is inevitably another story of Lindsey Buckingham being a terrible human being, right?" But it didn't even need saying.) I don't know about canon, but I do enjoy Christine McVie's keyboard playing in the version I linked.

Also hey Charley, you and your family are in our thoughts during this pitiless holiday season.


Posted by: lurid keyaki | Link to this comment | 12-17-19 3:32 PM
horizontal rule
102

Apparently the person who coined the term was trying to throw shade on Wyndham, but it doesn't actually characterize anything of Wyndham?


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 12-17-19 4:03 PM
horizontal rule
103

Thanks for that.. We were going to hide -- Dec 24 is my son's birthday -- but the granddaughter insisted we come to San Diego for Xmas..


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 12-17-19 5:35 PM
horizontal rule
104

Thinking of you, Charley. xoxo.


Posted by: Just Plain Jane | Link to this comment | 12-17-19 6:00 PM
horizontal rule
105

Any Unfogged people at pro-impeachment protests? I went to one at a nearby shopping plaza (Graceland, for those who know Columbus). Pretty good turnout! Lots of honking by passing motorists which we interpreted as expressing support.


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 12-17-19 7:30 PM
horizontal rule
106

Thinking also of you Charley


Posted by: NW | Link to this comment | 12-18-19 1:48 AM
horizontal rule
107

Minivet's link agrees with me, but enjoys the books as I also do. The chrysalids is a partial exception. The Dei ex machina who appear at the end are so horribly smug that they provided Paul Kantner with lyrics*. Which links of course with cocaine and hairspray.

[I dearly love blows against the empire but it's a very guilty pleasure]

* To crown of creation


Posted by: NW | Link to this comment | 12-18-19 1:58 AM
horizontal rule
108

The end of The Chrysalids is its weakest point, but it's otherwise pretty good.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 12-18-19 2:54 AM
horizontal rule
109

Oh yes. I think some of the baddies (both mutants and normal lgrownups) in the Chrysalids are his most frightening villains, even if the Triffids are the most memorable.


Posted by: NW | Link to this comment | 12-18-19 5:20 AM
horizontal rule
110

I read it first around the same time I read The Handmaid's Tale and thought the Chrysalids by far the better book. Better paced, less ponderous, better use of language, better villains.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 12-18-19 5:44 AM
horizontal rule
111

It still isn't his best though.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 12-18-19 5:46 AM
horizontal rule
112

Was The Chrysalids the first YA dystopian novel? I can't think of anything else that has all the tropes until at least a decade later.


Posted by: Ume | Link to this comment | 12-18-19 6:07 AM
horizontal rule
113

The first YA dystopian novel is "Treasure Island."


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 12-18-19 6:32 AM
horizontal rule
114

Anybody who disagrees with me is objectively pro-pirate.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 12-18-19 6:40 AM
horizontal rule
115

Or has read more novels.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 12-18-19 6:45 AM
horizontal rule
116

I suppose a strict phenomenologist could be intersubjectively pro-pirate even if they were actively stealing booty.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 12-18-19 6:48 AM
horizontal rule
117

The bottle of rum is a social construct.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 12-18-19 7:29 AM
horizontal rule
118

No, it isn't. But the money I'll use to buy it is.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 12-18-19 7:31 AM
horizontal rule
119

Some phenomenologists are very strict.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 12-18-19 7:35 AM
horizontal rule
120

110. I agree. ISTR reading a chunk of "The Chrysalids" that was presented as a short story, and had a different name. It ended with the kids being exiled, and wasn't cosy at all. I also read the full novel later, which I still remember.

"Cosy Catastrophes" is definitely a Brit genre, and for a long time if you wanted a catastrophe of any sort, you ended up with something British, and most were "cosy." Even "The Purple Cloud" was cosy, along with being creepy.

Can anyone come up with a decent list of cosy catastrophes not written by Brits? (Could "Farnham's Freehold" count? It ends up cosy. There's "Triumph," by Philip Wylie*, which ends up cosy-ish (in spite of the entire northern hemisphere being utterly nuked) in exactly the same way The Chrysalids does, except it's an Australian submarine doing the rescuing.

* Wylie was co-author of "When Worlds Collide", also cosy once you get to the sequel. Most people only read the first one, but "After Worlds Collide" has some great moments, such as a flat declaration by the leader of the survivors that species on the new world will not have Latin genus-species names, but good, solid English ones, because the Latin ones are stupid. (Wylie had many weird ideas.)


Posted by: DaveLMA | Link to this comment | 12-18-19 8:03 AM
horizontal rule
121

Where does "Roadside Picnic"/Stalker fit into these categories? The ending is more or less happy but it is never cosy.

Never read Farnham's Freehold.

I think Moby is for once being silly. Treasure Island isn't a catastrophe book at all.

But if you're looking for the first CC book, what about Robinson Crusoe? I know the rest of the world's population are not annihilated but they might as well have been for most of the book.


Posted by: NW | Link to this comment | 12-18-19 8:14 AM
horizontal rule
122

Maybe I was thinking of "Kidnapped"?


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 12-18-19 8:19 AM
horizontal rule
123

121: Not the first Cosy Catastrophe, the first Young Adult Dystopia, with the tropes parodied so wonderfully by @DystopianYA on Twitter ("I never asked for this, but it turns out I'm the only one who can save us"). I'm thinking of things like The Tripods or The Changes, even before we get to the Hunger Games. Treasure Island is an adventure story, not a dystopia; it also doesn't have the group, or at least the couple, of teenagers that's a prerequisite of the genre.


Posted by: Ume | Link to this comment | 12-18-19 8:30 AM
horizontal rule
124

I read Long John Silvers as being 15, but disguised.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 12-18-19 8:31 AM
horizontal rule
125

That would be much younger than his big brother Phil.


Posted by: DaveLMA | Link to this comment | 12-18-19 9:24 AM
horizontal rule
126

"Can anyone come up with a decent list of cosy catastrophes not written by Brits?"

Doesn't basically every American disaster novel count? Airport. Lucifer's Hammer. The Stand. Footfall.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 12-18-19 2:39 PM
horizontal rule
127

I like how J.G. Ballard started by writing Cosy Catastrophes and then moved into just Catastrophes, followed by Perpetual Chaos.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 12-18-19 3:14 PM
horizontal rule
128

The Changes are interesting. First because the books are extremely good. Second, the catastrophe is localised to England rather than global. It not very cosy at all in the second and third books, while in the first the colony of virtuous survivors are Sikhs, who take in a lost middle class white child.
I reread them last year, and they are still wonderfully frightening in parts.


Posted by: NW | Link to this comment | 12-18-19 4:03 PM
horizontal rule
129

They are, especially The Devil's Children, a massive Brexit metaphor.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 12-18-19 4:29 PM
horizontal rule
130

126. They aren't cosy enough. The catastrophe itself is always emphasized more than the cosy coping.


Posted by: DaveLMA | Link to this comment | 12-18-19 5:27 PM
horizontal rule
131

Stanley, way back at 70:

You were in a Tom T. Hall song!

The Little Lady Preacher


Posted by: Doug | Link to this comment | 12-19-19 1:03 AM
horizontal rule
132

Is Alas, Babylon sufficiently cosy?


Posted by: Doug | Link to this comment | 12-19-19 1:14 AM
horizontal rule
133

I don't think roadside Picnic is cosy at all; the ending is too ambiguous to be cosy. I found Farnham's Freehold disgusting at the age of 12 and nothing has happened to change my mind since. It would be cosy for people who find Rand Paul rallies cosy.

126 is very true.


Posted by: chris y | Link to this comment | 12-19-19 2:55 AM
horizontal rule
134

132. I'm shocked to discover that, based on the Wikipedia plot summary, I never read Alas, Babylon. So I can't tell if you are saying it is cosy, or isn't. It doesn't sound all that cosy.
133. Farnham's Freehold is pretty disgusting, but it's a perfectly cosy plot if you are Farnham. Everything falls into place for him in a way that is utterly improbable, while he thinks he's just executing the "omni-competent man" script.


Posted by: DaveLMA | Link to this comment | 12-19-19 5:34 AM
horizontal rule
135

133: I think Alas, Babylon might have fallen under the working definition of "cosy catastrophe" we're using here, but I don't think that I have read it since 1982 or thereabouts so I don't remember for sure.

I shared your reaction to Farnham's Freehold at about the same age. That and The Number of the Beast effectively put an end to my Heinlein reading.


Posted by: Doug | Link to this comment | 12-19-19 6:03 AM
horizontal rule