Suitedjustice's Ongoing Mid-life Crisis

I just finished reading The Mote in God's Eye by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, written in 1974, and considered by many critics to be one of the best modern science fiction novels.

The story is set 1000 years in the future, and two features about the book struck me. The first is that the heroes of the story mostly comprise a small group of high-ranking barons, dukes, admirals, senators, and ministers from an autocratic, all-encompassing galactic empire.

The book came out 3 years before Star Wars broke the box office, and the movie's empire got me wondering if that was instrumental in souring sci-fi writers and fans on the concept of imperialists as protagonists, given the plain villainy of Lord Vader, protégé to Star Wars' twisted, evil Emperor, and the empire's various militant lackeys, stormtroopers, and corrupt crime bosses.

But then I remembered Isaac Asimov's galactic empire in his early Foundation books from the 50s, and that empire was not exactly a benevolent operation, either.

Moving forward into the 60s finds us the reading through the galactic empire of Frank Herbert's Dune series, the emperor of which proves to be a backstabbing Machiavellian tyrant. He is replaced on the throne thanks to the efforts of our protagonist's fanatical, bloodthirsty, jihadist followers, and Paul Atreides's new galactic empire is run in a manner similar to Iran under the Ayatollahs.

So yeah, not many great imperial endorsements out there in Sci-Fi land.

Now, in The Mote in God's Eye, I ran into a cast of characters sporting all manner of five-jointed monikers, such as His Grace the Lord Commander Roderick Blaine, or Admiral Sir Vladimir Richard George Plekhanov, or His Imperial Highness Richard Stefan Merrill, Viceroy for His Majesty's Dominions Beyond the Coalsack, and I wondered: are these muckety mucks really the good guys in this story?

Indeed they are.

I call them the good guys because women's careers are marginalized in this particular period of this empire. This imbalance of power is vaguely explained away as being due to fertile women's numbers having been greatly reduced during one of the civil wars a few hundred years before the story commences.

Early on, we find ourselves following two expedition ships populated by thousands of scientists and military personnel, exactly one of whom is a woman, she being the Lady Sandra (Sally) Liddell Leonova Bright Fowler, B.A., M.S....so basically a weird Smurfette situation. And while Sally's degrees in anthropology prove to be occasionally useful within the story, she actually secured her spot on the expedition by being the niece of a prominent galactic senator. Mostly, though, she's the love interest and voice of conscience to His Grace Rod Blaine, the male lead character.

And yet, most of the high-toned characters are very charming and selfless and focused on the wellbeing of the citizens of the empire, and I found that to be a refreshing change from the standard evil monolith trope that we find in so much of the ruling classes in the other space operas.

The empire of The Mote in God's Eye isn't entirely benevolent; it is, after all, an autocracy, and in the midst of subjugating various rebellious groups at the edges of its territory when the story opens, but still it's definitely lacking the malevolent spirit that one finds in so many other fictional galactic empires.

The aristocrat-laden expedition of the two ships in the Mote in God's Eye is commissioned to make First Contact with the only sentient species that mankind has encountered up until that time.

And that brings us to the second thing that struck me about The Mote in God’s Eye, and that is the aliens, or the Moties, as they’re called. I’m not a big fan of most alien stories, as I carry in me an irrational fear and hatred of the mythical(?) Grey aliens, thanks in part to Whitley Strieber’s palpably terrified recounting—in his book Communion—of having his mind, his sanity and his family and friends messed with by the Greys over the course of several years.

The Moties, however, are great and fascinating characters. I don’t want to talk about them much here, because I don’t want to spoil them, as the manner in which Niven and Pournelle present them to us, sort of in dribs and drabs, laying out their extreme but understandable differences from us, really makes the book.

Throughout the story, we the readers learn about the aliens at a slightly faster rate than the empire does, and we can posit that—for various reasons—they’re going to be very bad for humanity if they’re not handled exactly perfectly. The Moties aren’t evil; they have their own morality scale, based upon their own unique biological and historical imperatives, but they are dangerous to us, just by being themselves.

The book wraps up in a satisfying manner. Niven and Pournelle did write a sequel to it, The Gripping Hand, but the reviews I've read on that book range from tepid to highly negative, so I've decided to stay away from it, as a bad sequel can sometimes retroactively ruin a good original, and The Mote in God's Eye is very good. I recommend it.

i'm an inch and a titch taller for now, also found out yestareday before lunch i weigh 180 and her 49.7, so it could be 40 lbs for you as well.
:shrug:

Good job on the weight loss! Feels good, man.

From a short conversation with myself yesterday.

"Stop picking your nose."

"You stop picking my nose."

glad you loved mote in god's eye

you make me want to revisit again - one of my favorites of all time

and extreme kudos to be able to discuss it in such detail without granting spoilers - something i've never been able to do other than recommend it to people with the caveat of "if i say anything i'll spoil it"

Thanks rickroll! I've since finished the 4th book in the Expanse sci-fi opera series, and that's still a great read after like 2200 pages. Those two guys who share the pen name James S.A. Corey know how to keep up a good yarn.

Now I'm reading Kazuo Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go. I've haven't read the book before, nor have I seen the movie, but somehow I've been spoiled on the story's big secret. I think I must have spoiled it by reading a review back when the film came out. I used to read the movie magazine Empire pretty faithfully, back when paper magazines still had enough money to hire great writers.

Even though it's been spoiled, I'm still enjoying reading my way to the big reveal. Ishiguro's an excellent writer.

After taking some shots at online tournament poker and leaving with only a few mincashes, I will take one more shot at the online tourney glory today, then I'm heading back to the casino tomorrow to try to rebuild my finances. Wish me luck.

Go get 'em!

youcandoit.gif

heresmyonetime.png

Why are Tuesdays mostly a nothing day? I can’t remember ever getting laid on a Tuesday; and if it did happen it probably wasn’t worth it.

Thanks guys!

It's probably the day when the most work gets done. Not as many people hungover from the weekend, and not as many running out the clock until the next weekend. On the other hand, the Rolling Stones, the Moody Blues and Lynyrd Skynyrd have all written decent songs about the day.

It took me until yesterday to finally make it back to the casino. The thought that got me going was that if I'm to be the protagonist of this thread, then I'd better start acting like a protagonist; to wit, do things.

Most people are the protagonists of their own lives, but me, I've always taken a more laissez-faire approach to being the main character. I'll do it if I feel like it.

But once again, why have a thread if I'm not going to generate any content?

So I went back to the tables on Monday, and I lost, again. I've never come anywhere close to having this bad of a streak: blackjack, slots or poker, live or online, cash or tournaments, nothing else has approached this particular live cash downswing. I'd forgotten that the protagonist needs to suffer in order to grow or advance the story or what have you. So here I am, suffering.

Tomorrow, I'll be back at it. I'm going to either pull up or go down swinging.

Today I watched Dr. Sleep, the sequel to The Shining, and I was surprised by how good it was. The book was fine; the movie may have been better.

I think that the movie did a fine job of incorporating the main character's alcohol recovery process into what is essentially a supernatural action/horror pic. Without a deft touch, the booze plotline could have instead given off the sort of Very Special Episode notes that would have attenuated the chills and thrills. But it avoided that. So, well done. I recommend the movie.

I've always taken life pass/fail. I think it generates better content that way.

Are you studying? Like actually studying winning concepts and exploits and reviewing practice hands of spots? I’m not saying you have to buy a sub to J. Little or Dougie Polk, but are we just showing up and hoping our skill and experience is best?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The thing about variance - and I do not want to come upon as being snotty, but here it is -, is that it can always get worse... And it does 😊. That being said, if Lady Luck is completely left to the Poker Gods, what we can control, us mere mortals, is doubling down on the studying!!!

GL Suited, you got this

Hey N8t! Good to hear from you, sir.

I had been assiduously watching at least one instructional video per day. Bart Hanson's live cash call-ins were the majority. After that, then Johnathon Little, Carrot, and Splitsuit (who hasn't put out much lately), after that the live cash vloggers like Jaman Burton, Doug Polk and Andrew Neeme.

But I have fallen off that schedule in the last couple of months, so it's back to it, and thank you for the reminder!

Sj, Just follow on YouTube this channel. Called' live Poker guide'. I'll probably get roasted for making this recommendation, but in my opinion, what everyone needs is a straightforward and common sense strategy for low stakes live Poker.
A lot of what this guy preaches is nothing new for someone with any experience, but we sometimes have to be reminded to just keep it simple and stick with the basics.
Gl

next book should be fire upon the deep

Thanks Nepeeme2008! I checked him out and he looks like just the thing for me. Subbed.

Due to budgetary constraints, it's going to be a while until the next book haul. I appreciate the Internet/Kindle options, but I'll always use the dead trees as my book medium—something about the feel and the heft of a paper book allows me to lose my self into it in a way that I can't with a screen.

I lost another $200+ at poker, and the machines have been sparse with plays, and breakeven when they have been available.

To console myself with something light and joy-filled, I watched Singin' in the Rain, from 1952, and I enjoyed the hell out of it.

The conceit of the movie is that the year is 1927, and talking pictures have just swept over Hollywood, and leading man Kelly's beautiful but formerly silent co-star, played by Jean Hagen, has a voice like a balloon being deflated while some joker pinches the stem, so they must find a voice to dub over her squawks without insulting her expansive but fragile ego.

It was neat seeing an early 1950s film's nostalgia for the late 1920s. It would be like making a film nowadays that waxes nostalgic for a young Britney Spears, frosted tips, wide-leg jeans, and the Y2K bug.

I'd never seen anything with Gene Kelly before, and I found his charisma and dancing chops to be nothing short of amazing. I would say that he moves like a cat, but many cats are clumsier. I've seen the videos to prove it.

Here he is, in something fun and colorful and innocent, until Cyd Charisse comes in, she who cameos here as the embodiment of sex and how good sex can be for people. And with that, Gene Kelly's semi-cornball "Aw shucks, now you've gone and gotten me all horny" accompaniment got me smirking.

There's a lot of cheesecake for something from 1952. I wonder if they pushed the "Hey, we're portraying the Roaring Twenties here, they were wild and free back then" aspect with the production gatekeepers.

This burlesque aspect, however, is balanced out by the wholesome energy of the female lead, Debbie Reynolds. Reynolds's character, as the starlet's voice dubber and Kelly's love interest, is not a sexpot. Compared to the standard 50s bombshell, she's a bit blocky and has a low center of gravity.

Of course, by normal and sane standards, she's adorable, and her star quality shines through. I couldn't take my eyes off her; but it wasn't the Male Gaze per se, it was an appreciation for watching one of the best at work.

While wearing 2 1/2" (6 cm) heels, Reynolds easily keeps up with Kelly and his other highly talented co-star, Donald O'Connor, whose wisecracking wingman reminded me a bit of Ralph Malph from Happy Days, a show from the late 1970s that was nostalgic for the mid 1950s.

Singin' in the Rain was the perfect bowl of ice cream to sooth my battered psyche. As far as old-timey feel-good movies go, I liked it more than It's a Wonderful Life, which I'd also recently watched and enjoyed for the first time.

no used book store options in your neck of the woods?

Or try thrift stores? If convenient, their selection is (definitionally) pretty random, but I often find interesting stuff for a couple bucks.

There are stores a good half hour or more away, but there is also the town library. A few years ago, I donated 6 big boxes of my own stuff there. It might be nice to visit with some of that again, assuming that I'm not in some sort of Black Book type national database after checking two Mark Twain books out of the Las Vegas library for more than 20 years.

I did return them, eventually, at the exterior drop box, at 3 AM, while wearing a hoodie and a Covid mask.